TN: Owner of cell phone doesn’t need to be known for SW for it

Search warrants are directed at things and information, and the fact officers didn’t know the owner of the cell phone didn’t mean the warrant was invalid. The phone revealed internet searches about a homicide before it was public knowledge. State v. Jones, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 125 (Mar. 25, 2024).

Defendant’s Franks motion fails because there’s really nothing materially false. Officers in fact had an arrest warrant for him, too. United States v. McCormick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51844 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2024).*

The USMJ didn’t look at the alleged child pornography images, and they were described. The warrant was at least relied upon in good faith. “After combining these facts with the two Dost factors that are present, it is a close question as to whether the warrant provided sufficient detail to enable a magistrate judge to conclude that the image was CSAM. Since ‘the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases … should largely be determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants,’ I ultimately do not need to decide this issue as the good-faith exception applies even if probable cause did not exist.” United States v. Casher, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51891 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.