United States v. Andres Lopez-Cruz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that consent to search a cell phone does not extend to answering incoming calls on the cell phone
• defendant consented for border patrol agent to “look through” his cell phone, but scope of that consent did not include answering incoming calls
• defendant consented for border patrol agent to \look through\ his cell phone, but scope of that consent did not include answering incoming calls
• “[N]one of our ‘abandonment’ cases has held that mere disavowal of ownership, without more, constitutes abandonment of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in that property.”
• scope 2 of consent to search phone did not extend to answering it
• arrestee did not abandon his privacy interest in cell phones when he denied ownership of them and said they belonged to a friend because he was in possession of them and using them when he was stopped by border-patrol agent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).