Opinion ID: 687143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pager Evidence

Text: 13 Stroud claims that the district court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained from the telephone numbers transmitted to his pager following his arrest. 2 The district court's denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, and the underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Delgado, 4 F.3d 780, 788 (9th Cir.1993). 14 Before his arrest, Stroud had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the pager's memory. See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1977). However, the pager was seized incident to a lawful arrest and searched to obtain evidence that might otherwise have been destroyed. This exigent circumstance combined with the lawful seizure destroyed Stroud's reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his pager. See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-64 (1969); United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 887 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 103 (1991); United States v. Chan, 830 F.Supp. 531, 534-35 (N.D.Cal.1993). In light of these facts, we find that the district court did not err by denying Stroud's motion to suppress the pager evidence.