D.Vt.: Delay in searching one cell phone here leads to suppression but not as to a second one

Considering the four factors to consider in the delay in searching defendant’s cell phone, all the factors favor him. As to the exclusionary rule, “Because there is an ‘appreciable deterrent value’ in suppressing the evidence from the 9/15/22 Warrant, as it will dissuade law enforcement from future delays, Smith, 967 F.3d at 212, the court GRANTS Mr. Delima’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Cell Phones 1 and 2 pursuant to the 9/15/22 Warrant under Smith.” As to a second phone, suppression is denied. United States v. Delima, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201552 (D. Vt. Nov. 9, 2023).

VA employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in work emails, even with their lawyer. Sickels v. McDonough, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201554 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2023).*

Despite some proof of pretext, the stop had an objective basis for violation of traffic laws. The grant of the motion to suppress is reversed. State v. Goodpasture, 2023-Ohio-4060 (2d Dist. Nov. 9, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, E-mail, Pretext. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.