MA: Two day delay in getting SW for cell phone wasn’t unreasonable

Defendant’s cell phone was reasonably seized to preserve any evidence in it. The two day delay in getting a search warrant for it did not unreasonably interfere with defendant’s possessory interest in it. Commonwealth v. Cruzado, 2018 Mass. LEXIS 549 (Aug. 10, 2018):

Here, the defendant’s minimal possessory interest was far outweighed by the government’s interest in obtaining evidence regarding a recent murder. Although the defendant claimed to be using the cell phone, he admitted that he had only had it for a day. Moreover, he was unaware of the identity of its actual owner, or even of its number, and he repeatedly told police that the cell phone was not his. Critically, police likely would not have been able to return the cell phone to the defendant even if he had requested it: they would not have been able to ascertain that the cell phone belonged to the defendant, as he stated that he had received it from a male “crack head” and the cell phone had the name “Vanessa” displayed on it. Whatever possessory interest the defendant had in the cell phone was thus extremely weak, in contrast to that in White, upon which the defendant primarily relies. In that case, the defendant was the actual owner of the cell phone seized. White, 475 Mass. at 595 n.15.

Other courts have sustained delays far longer than two days.