S.D.Cal.: Def doesn’t get discovery of cell phone govt hasn’t decrypted

When the government seizes a cell phone under a warrant and the data is encrypted and it can’t see it, it is not in “possession” for Rule 16 discovery purposes. United States v. Mejia, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142962 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2025).

Three controlled buys from defendant’s house, the last 72 hours before the warrant, was probable cause. United States v. Kinsler, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142793 (E.D. Tenn. July 25, 2025).*

Merely having a key to another’s apartment wasn’t enough for standing. Defendant doesn’t even show that he was a guest there. United States v. Adams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140057 (W.D.N.Y. July 22, 2025).*

The stop was justified because of the expired inspection and overtinted windshield. Then the smell of marijuana was probable cause. United States v. Ford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141767 (D.V.I. July 24, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Discovery, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.