NY4: No limitation in cell phone search was included, and it was thus not particular

The cell phone warrant sought all information on it about a 48 hour period without limitation, and it was vague and overbroad. “The warrant contained no language incorporating any other documents or facts. Significantly, the search of the phone was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion of the search to the executing officers …. While the search warrant application contained information about the crime and defendant’s possession of the phone during the crime, the search warrant application was not incorporated into the search warrant and therefore ‘does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity.’” People v. Saeli, 2023 NY Slip Op 04268, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301 (4th Dept. Aug. 11, 2023).

The government got a warrant to get defendant’s CSLI. He’s wrong on that. United States v. Adepoju, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139468 (D.Mass. Aug. 10, 2023).*

“Relying on a document produced by the Government during discovery in which Roberts outlined various complaints received about Reardon between April and June 2017 and in November 2017, Reardon argued that the complaints were not recent enough to justify the phrasing ‘over the past several months.’” This was not a Franks violation. United States v. Reardon, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20832 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.