United States v. Cleveland
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
907 F.3d 423 (2018)
- Written by Tiffany Hester, JD
Facts
In October, law-enforcement officers executed a warrant to search and seize evidence from the home of suspected drug dealer Larone Williams. The officers seized, among other evidence, the cell phone of Dockery Cleveland (defendant), Williams’s associate, who was present during the search. On November 6, a judge issued a warrant to search Cleveland’s phone, authorizing forensic examination of the phone’s contents. The warrant ordered law enforcement to execute the warrant by November 27. On November 9, law enforcement removed Cleveland’s phone from the evidence locker and sent the phone to the lab for data extraction. Upon the phone’s arrival, lab technicians turned off the phone’s transmission capabilities, preventing it from receiving further communications. The lab extracted the phone’s data on December 21, finding outgoing calls to a drug transporter in October and pictures of Cleveland holding a lot of cash. The United States prosecuted Cleveland for several drug offenses. Cleveland moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his phone, arguing that the extraction was unlawful after the November 27 execution date stated on the November 6 warrant. The district court denied Cleveland’s motion. Ultimately, the jury convicted Cleveland, and Cleveland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bush, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.