Was a search warrant needed in this situation?

No. The officer has reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, that the suspect has the phone. The suspect would probably consent to a search anyway, since he/she knows that the officer knows he/she has the phone.

Also, there is an extension of “plain view” that refers to hearing. If the officer hears the phone ringing, and has probable cause that the phone is related to some crime (victim’s statement), he/she can seize the phone.

I’m figuring it’s highly unlikely that two people in the same room have the same Lady Gaga ringtone. Just give up the damned phone. You’re caught.

Here is a thought: suppose the suspect states “the phone you hear ringing belongs to me and all three of us have the same ringtone”. does this change the mix in probable cause and a need for a search warrant? i will give you the answer. its interesting.

A cop with a certain amount of “presence” would be able to tell the suspect that “If you give up the phone now, then this ends here. If I need to get a warrant, then this becomes an official arrest, as well, and will involve court time and cost. Give up the phone, because we know that you have it.”

Unless the thief had the presence of mind to shut the thing off, remove the battery or turn off the ringer, you could dial it all night long and verify by the timing of the rings that he has it in his pocket.

Don’t make it an “official” thing, and he can turn over the phone to the rightful owner and end the matter there. If a search of the person is required, then so is a warrant.

If it were my phone that was stolen, I’d just issue a little frontier justice because considering the circumstances, there are only two suspects and one of them has it. It’d be faster and it’d be a lesson to them both that I don’t fuck around with petty thieves.

nope. probable cause. busted.

There’s no way to know that the ringing phone is the missing phone just because it started ringing at the same time the missing phone was called unless it has a unique ringtone. Obviously there’s a very good chance it is the missing phone but that alone is probably only enough to hold everyone present till you have warrent.

There’s no need to detain and wait for a warrant as the officer has probable cause for a search. Probably cause means that the officer has a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, and that justifies a search of the person. No one could claim that this officer was not reasonable in thinking that the person in question could have the other party’s phone.

I’d love to hear the answer, John.

In response to your additional details, the officer could just call the phone like three times in a row. If it rings in the suspect’s pocket each time, I’m pretty sure that would be enough to search him without a warrant.

A search warrant is not necessary because the police were invited into the home. We had an incident similar to this several years ago. A neighbor’s home was broken into over the holidays. In investigating the crime, it appeared that the person came into the house from the home next door. The police knocked on the door, and was invited in by one of the roommates, who had just returned from out of town. In the living room, was the stolen property from the house next door. They arrested the man’s roommate who had been in town. No warrant because they were invited in.

@BarnacleBill

That’s not wholly accurate – if the property had been in the roommate’s bedroom, then more likely than not a search warrant would have been necessary. Because it was in a place of mutual access, and someone who reasonably appeared to have access to most places in the home consented to police presence, that’s why there was no warrant needed.

The laws applicable to searches of a person’s home and a person’s body are subject to slightly different rules, as well. Regardless, you can’t consent to a search of another’s body except potentially in very, very specific circumstances.

I don’t think one is needed in this case.

From what I remember, you need a search warrant to search a fixed object because it can’t go anywhere, whereas you don’t need one to search something or someone that can leave the scene of a crime under its own power, such as a person.

As others have stated, probable cause would be provided by the cell ringing right after the number of the missing one was called.
Further evidence could be provided if the officer terminated the call before it went to voice mail and the called cell stopped ringing right after that.

The answer: the officer went to another location and sent a text message to victims phone and the phone hiding in susects pocket. all three may have had the same ringtone, but not the same message alert tone. victim described his phones alert tone. when the alarm sounded, it was victim’s phone in suspects pocket. i told suspect to reach into his pocket and read the text message. this he did. the message stated: YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!

i dont think that a search warrant is needed no. the guy stole his phone, hes guilty, hes busted! if i was that man, id press charges.

no its probable cause… judges would be pissed if they were called about this situation