D.Md.: Cell phone dump on a SW wasn’t shown to be overbroad

A cell phone dump after a search warrant wasn’t necessarily overbroad, and didn’t show it. “More particularity was impractical, and was not required.” United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125994 (D. Md. July 15, 2022).

Officers who used “trickery” to friend defendant and get access to his “private” Facebook page didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. If he has a First Amendment claim for political retaliation, that’s for a civil case. United States v. Randall, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125971 (W.D. Wis. May 23, 2022).

“Consequently, it does not appear that the affiant made any statements in reckless disregard for the truth, let alone false statements in the GPS Tracking Warrant and Dodge Search Warrant affidavits.” United States v. McLeod, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125867 (D.N.J. July 15, 2022).*

The affidavit shows probable cause based on the regular corroborated informant’s story. Even if not, it was enough for the good faith exception. United States v. Garcia, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125892 (S.D. Ga. June 28, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Overbreadth, Social media warrants. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.