CA8: SW for already seized cell phone came from SW for far more; apparently created confusion, but not suppression

Officers had seized defendant’s phone and applied for a search warrant for it and other things at the same time, and that led to a motion to suppress the phone search. “Suellentrop argues that the search of the phone was unlawful because it was beyond the scope of the warrant. Under the Constitution, however, the question is whether the officers reasonably believed that the warrant authorized the search, even if their interpretation was mistaken. United States v. Houck, 888 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2018). The Fourth Amendment allows for some ‘honest mistakes’ that are made by officers in the process of executing search warrants. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 87, 107 S. Ct. 1013, 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987). [¶] Given the circumstances, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for investigators to believe that the state warrant authorized the search of Suellentrop’s phone, along with other electronic devices that might be found at Suellentrop’s residence. The warrant is not a model of clarity.” Still, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Suellentrop, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9430 (8th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Scope of search, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.