MA: 123-day delay between cell phone seizure and SW was unreasonable here

Balancing the interests involved, the trial court found that the 123-day delay between seizure of defendant’s cell phone and seeking a search warrant for it was unreasonable. On de novo review, “That notwithstanding, there is no Massachusetts precedent upholding as reasonable anything remotely approaching the 123-day delay in the present case.” Commonwealth v. Diaz, 2025 Mass. App. LEXIS 78 (Aug. 29, 2025).

In a wire and tax fraud case, “It was reasonable to believe that the computers—which the affidavit stated contained Park Southern’s financial and accounting records—would provide corroborating evidence of those crimes. J.A. 238, 254. Other information cited in the warrant, including statements about Scott’s embezzlement and allegations of financial mismanagement, further supported probable cause of Scott’s tax fraud, J.A. 249, reinforcing the inadequacy of Scott’s challenges to probable cause.” Besides, he consented to the search. United States v. Scott, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22247 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).*

Plain feel of a loose pills in a fanny pack during arrest justified its search. United States v. Childs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168214 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.