S.D.N.Y.: No stay of execution of a computer and cell phone SW after def was indicted

Defendant was arrested in Malaysia and a computer and cell phones were seized. He was then indicted in NYC. The nine-day delay in getting a warrant was not unreasonable considering defendant was in custody and unable to use them. A stay of execution of the warrant is denied. He’s been indicted, and there was probable cause. The only case he cites doesn’t provide any support for its rationale, plus it was pre-indictment. United States v. Hiya, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222422 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2024).

Amazon has surveillance equipment in delivery vans, and plaintiff’s was hit by a train. Amazon released the video publicly, and plaintiff sued claiming a violation of state law. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the van. Evans v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223002 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2024).*

Search incident doesn’t require proof of actual exigency. State v. Duffee, 2024 Ore. App. LEXIS 1686 (Dec. 11, 2024).*

The affiant’s failure to cross-reference information in the file was “regrettable” but insufficient for a Franks violation. Burgos v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223456 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Search incident, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.