CA2: Pending 2255 petition justifies denial of Rule 41(g) petition

The business’s petition for return of records obtained by search warrant and grand jury subpoena is denied. The business’s principal is still litigating his criminal case and a 2255 is pending, and that justifies it. Allen v. Grist Mill Capital LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32636 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2023).

The cell phone warrant was not overbroad. It specified things sought and crimes under investigation. Defendant keys on ring tones on the phone. “Regarding Defendant’s assertion that there could be no potential evidentiary value in ring tones (Doc. 112 at 7), the Court notes that cell phones can be set with a special ring tone associated with certain individuals or groups of individuals, e.g., drug suppliers or clients. See Minto v. United States, Nos. 2:05-CR-22, 2:09-CV-114, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143644, 2011 WL 6180111, at 4 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 13, 2011). Thus, ring tones could be of evidentiary value related to the charge of Possession with Intent identified in the Warrant (id. at 1).” “Could be” is enough. United States v. Bellucci, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219440 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2023). (E.g., Eric Clapton’s “Cocaine” for one person?).

There’s no fixed number of times a person can be Tazed by the police before the officer loses qualified immunity. Est. of Melvin v. City of Colo. Springs, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32622 (10th Cir. Dec. 11, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.