D.Alaska: Sharing cell phone gives standing

Defendant shared the iPhone of another person, so he had standing to contest its search. United States v. Powers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192621 (D. Alaska Sep. 30, 2025).

Defendants don’t get qualified immunity. The jury could conclude that more than minimal force was used against plaintiff. Heard v. Ass’n of Ark. Ctys. Risk Mgmt. Fund, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192615 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 30, 2025).*

“Meek-Freeman fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that an inmate does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell. 468 U.S. at 530. Because Meek-Freeman does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell, Upole and Winters did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched his cell.” Freeman v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192448 (D. Md. Sep. 30, 2025).*

Defendant officer accessing confidential information through misuse of police resources doesn’t get qualified immunity. Taylor v. Hooven, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193226 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.