N.D.Cal.: 55 day delay in getting cell phone SW didn’t matter because this was a supervised release revo proceeding, and the exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply

Defendant’s cell phone was seized in an arrest for loitering for pimping. After his probation officer went back and forth with the police, he declined to search it under defendant’s search condition, and 55 days elapsed, and a search warrant was finally obtained. Defense counsel had been asking for the phone back; even if the delay was unreasonable, this is a supervised release revocation proceeding, and the exclusionary rule would not apply. United States v. Gibson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171454 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 2015).

“[C]onfidential sources, physical surveillance, and GPS information from Bennett’s car all pointed to 108 Decker Street as Bennett’s primary residence and a location that carried at least a fair probability of harboring contraband and information leading to contraband.” Therefore, the search warrant should not be suppressed. United States v. Bennett, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171416 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015).*