D.Conn.: That accomplices communicated by text messaging justified SW for cell phone

This cell phone was with probable cause and was particular. “Here, the warrant affidavits clearly established probable cause to conclude that Sinisterra was involved in all three shootings described therein. He was implicated by two individuals who corroborated each other and were in turn corroborated by other evidence. The affidavits further averred that both Sinisterra and W1 were members of 960, and that they communicated with each other via text message, Facebook messenger, and Facetime. Finally, Sinisterra used his cell phone to contact W1, arguably confessing, minutes after a shooting in which he was implicated by W1.” United States v. Sinisterra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36057 (D. Conn. Mar. 1, 2024).*

While the smell of alcohol on the persson and erratic driving alone isn’t probable cause, defendant’s attempted flight added enough. Brown v. State, 2024 Md. App. LEXIS 154 (Mar. 1, 2024).*

There were two search warrants here. Information in the first application supported the second. The first was later suppressed. The officer did not act recklessly in including that information in the second warrant application. The second stands on its own and the suppressed part isn’t material. Also, the warrant wasn’t stale because this was an ongoing drug operation. United States v. Guenther, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34570 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Probable cause, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.