N-M: 94-day delay in getting cell phone SW was unreasonable; GFE not applicable

The search of defendant’s iPhones and iPads lacked probable cause at the time it happened. His wife had apparent authority to search because she knew the passcodes but that doesn’t equate to her apparent authority to seize them. Also, the 94-day delay in getting a search warrant was unreasonable. Finally, the good faith exception of M.R.E. 311(a) does not apply, knowing full well a count will be dismissed. This is fundamental stuff, not cutting-edge law and technology. United States v. Harborth, 2023 CCA LEXIS 540 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 21, 2023).

2254 petitioner litigated his search claim in state court, so he had the Stone v. Powell process, and he can’t reassert it in federal court. Roybal v. Schnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227221 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2023).*

Officers came upon defendant parked on a rural road at night with a gun in his lap. Drawing down on him was reasonable and wasn’t itself a seizure at that point. United States v. Sanford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227306 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2023),* adopted in part 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226928 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2023)* (but statements suppressed).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Military searches, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.