Source: https://blog.arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com/wireless-communications-unlawful-drug-transactions-arizona/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:16:40+00:00

Document:
In other transactions, the undercover agent came to buy drugs, but the defendant didn’t show up to sell them.
The Appeals court noted that the language under Arizona law A.R.S. § 13-1003 which pertains to the act of Conspiracy plainly requires at least two parties to the wire or electronic communication who are arranging to commit a crime.
Further the court observed that that under A.R.S. § 13-1004 Facilitation generally refers to the efforts of someone else, other than a primary or necessary actor to commit the crime.
In its conclusion the Court cited the Abuelhawe v. United States, 556 U.S. 816 (2009) to support its decision. In that case, the defendant’s phone call to the drug seller was determined to have facilitated the illegal drug transaction.
The court concluded that a defendant should not be convicted of “conspiracy” or “facilitation” of committing a felony § 13-3417(A) violation.
This, due to the fact that by acting as the principal in a drug sale between two parties, there was no evidence that the defendant was talking to someone other than the undercover officer, to further the drug transaction.
The convictions related to wire and electronic communications were vacated. The convictions on the remaining counts not related to the A.R.S. 13- 3417 (A), were affirmed. Penalties were subject to remand pending clarification of the sentences for the 5 counts that were vacated.
The impact of this ruling is that in order for a person to be convicted on counts under 13-3417 (A) for conspiracy or facilitation of a crime through use of wireless or electronic devices, the prosecution will need to present more evidence of communications with others, v. sole communications between with an undercover officer and the defendant.
Cell Phone Searches v. Privacy Rights With advancements in technology and increased usage of electronic devices and wireless communications in everyday life, digital evidence has become a primary source of investigation in criminal investigations.
State and Federal laws have seen many challenges in this area as existing legislation becomes outdated.
As a result courts look to precedent cases at the state and federal level for guidance in rulings.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a warrant is needed to search or seize a person’s cell phone or mobile device to make sure it is not in violation of 4th Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
The reasoning behind the decision in recent cases is that cell phone, in particular smartphones are capable of holding a vast quantity of diverse digital data. This coupled with the fact that most have internet access, makes a cell phone a mini-computer.
The court held that seizing a cell phone with a substantial amount of personal information about a person and their daily lives, requires a higher degree of privacy protection.
Arizona court decisions have been consistent with this ruling, and limited searches pertaining to a suspect’s cell phone.
While most other objects can be searched or seized incidental to an arrest, that is not the case for cell phones.
A few exceptions to the warrant requirement that would generally apply to other objects, do not apply to cell phones.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the otherwise general exception of fear of destruction or loss of evidence, or imminent harm to police does not apply to digital data.
Thus, in general a warrant with “probable cause” is needed to search and seize a person’s cell phone.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that examining the phone itself is different from cell phone and GPS or location tracking.
In one Federal Appeals Court case, United States v. Davis in 2015, the court ruled that cell phone location tracking of a person suspected of committing a crime was not in violation of the suspects 4th Amendment rights.
That case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected hearing arguments in that case. Without a decision by the highest court, the lower Federal Appeal Court rulings stand, and may be cited for consideration as precedent.
Arizona courts have ruled that GPS and location tracking by law enforcement agencies was in the in the best interest of public safety. Therefore, police may still track cell phone location for if they suspect criminal activity.
New and pending litigation exists in Arizona and throughout the country challenging issues surrounding cell phone location tracking.
Cell phone searches and privacy rights will continue to be a topic of debate, with litigation and challenge of existing laws due to public outcry and the continued advancements in technology.
“The mobile device and its records hold material evidence about the user’s involvement in a crime, if it is properly captured.
Once police have lawful access to the phone, it will be examined by police or independent investigator on their behalf.
Cell phones and in particular smart phones are capable of storing a vast amount of data which can prove to be of interest to police in a criminal investigation.
Smart phones are usually capable of storing user’s contacts, photos, calendars, notes, text messages, multimedia messages, videos, internet browsing history, E-mail communications, and social network communications.
In some cases the mobile device’s history may reveal the particular cellular tower that covered the communication.
If a cell phone was involved in a crime, police are also interested in obtaining the carrier records. It is common practice for police to request these.
The records may validate what was found on the cell phone as well as information the carrier has which may not be on the phone.
The Carrier may provide this (*) data for text messaging.
Archives and backup files of data contained in the phone may be found on the Internet or a local computer. These files may contain data which was deleted between the time of the backup and when the phone was seized and examined.
Scott Greene is a Senior Technology Forensics Examiner at Evidence Solutions, INC.
This case illustrates the importance of retaining a criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and defend your charges if you have been accused of a crime.
All felony convictions call for at least one year in prison, as well as other harsh consequences that will jeopardize your future and freedom.
If you are charged with a drug crime, including offenses related to wire and electronic communications, consult James E. Novak, experienced drug crimes defense attorney in Tempe, Arizona.
James Novak, experienced DUI and Criminal Defense Attorney, is a former prosecutor and highly skilled trial lawyer. If retained, he can provide you with a strong defense for your charges.
The Law Office of James Novak offers a free initial consultation for active criminal charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona.
You can contact or call The Law Office of James Novak, (480) 413-1499 and speak with James Novak for your free and confidential initial consultation.

References: § 13
 § 13
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v.