S.D.N.Y.: GJ subpoena for cell phone passcode quashed.

The government’s grand jury subpoena for defendant’s cell phone passcode is quashed because it seeks testimonial information in violation of the Fifth Amendment showing defendant’s knowledge of the contents of the phone. “The Court denies Gray’s Rule 41(g) motion. Even assuming arguendo that the iPhone is Gray’s, Gray has not shown that the iPhone’s initial seizure was illegal or the Government’s need for it as potential evidence has ended.” United States v. Gray, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64314 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2024).

Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not arguing a suppression motion that wasn’t shown to be meritorious. Rangel-Ramirez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64469 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2024).*

The Rodriguez moment here: “The video corroborates Trooper Francis’s testimony that he was in the process of running traffic-related checks when, at 17:38, Trooper Borelli interrupted him to report that Caraballo’s statements concerning his itinerary were false. If that information provided reasonable suspicion that Caraballo had narcotics in the SUV, his continued detention was not unlawful.” United States v. Caraballo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64486 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.