N.D.Ga.: No REP in a prison inmate’s cell phone

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025).

This line in defendant’s PSR leads to denial of his motion to shorten supervised release. “Fausnaught confronted a source of information that led to the 1995 search warrant, calling him a ‘snitch’, remarking that ‘snitches get stitches,’ and threatening to have the source killed.” United States v. Fausnaught, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130416 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2025).*

The trial court is to compare the credibility of the officer’s testimony against the video which did not happen here. State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-2427 (5th Dist. July 8, 2025).*

The fact the officer could have attempted to resolve the discrepancy of the VIN not matching the license plate a different way doesn’t mean the officer acted unreasonably, quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985) (“[T]he question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue it”). United States v. Barrow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16896 (5th Cir. July 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonableness, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.