U.S. v. Bell

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s cell phone, even though at time of defendant’s arrest, officer opened defendant’s flip phone and viewed photograph of firearm on phone’s home screen. While arresting officer’s actions amounted to likely unconstitutional search, Dist. Ct. could properly deny instant motion based on independent source doctrine, where record showed that: (1) police obtained search warrants following defendant’s arrest to search his cell phone based on fact that informant had previously provided police with picture of firearm that defendant had sent to informant; and (2) search warrant requests were supported by probable cause based on two controlled transactions regarding defendant's attempt to sell said firearm. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that affidavits supporting issuance of warrant lacked facts to support any finding that informant was credible. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that certain delays violated Speedy Trial Act, where: (1) Dist. Ct. could properly find that continuance caused by govt.’s filing of superseding indictment alleging four new counts, along with over 1,000 pages of new discovery, five days before scheduled start of trial qualified for end-of-justice exclusion; and (2) delays caused by pending pre-trial motions are excluded from 70-day clock. Also, defendant failed to establish any prejudice to support his 6^th Amendment speedy trial claim, where, although certain witnesses could not recall certain facts due to two-year delay in bringing case to trial, defendant failed to explain what additional testimony such witnesses could have offered that would have helped his case.