D.Minn.: “other media” showing “address, vehicle, and location of narcotics proceeds” permitted seizure of cell phone

The search warrant authorized seizure of “other media that show standing for an address, vehicle, the location of narcotics proceeds, or a connection between people, addresses and vehicles or that a crime has been committed” and that permitted seizure of a cell phone. United States v. Oliver, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157787 (D.Minn. Nov. 23, 2015):

First, the cell phones were not seized incident to Oliver’s arrest, but rather pursuant to the search warrant. See Gov’t Ex. 5, at 6. Second, although the warrant does not expressly list cell phones as items to be seized, see id. at 1, it does list “other media that show standing for an address, vehicle, the location of narcotics proceeds, or a connection between people, addresses and vehicles or that a crime has been committed.” Id. It is self-evident that a cell phone could constitute such media.4 Moreover, officers are not precluded from seizing items not listed in the search warrant if the items may contain items identified in the search warrant. See United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796, 807 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the seizure of cell phones, which were not listed in the warrant, was proper because cell phones likely contain items specifically identified in the warrant, such as “records of the use and purchase of controlled substances”). Here, the search warrant lists “[d]ocuments, mails, address books, notes, receipts, ledgers, [and] photographs,” all of which may well be found on a cell phone. Gov’t Ex. 5, at 1.