CA2: Warrantless search of ptf’s Uber app history was a 4A violation

Warrantless search of a cell phone to access plaintiff’s Uber history stated a Fourth Amendment claim. Etere v. Nassau Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25753 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025).

Even if defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for a lack of particularity, there’s no prejudice here based on all the evidence the state had that defendant was involved in the homicide. Evans v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 219 (Sep. 30, 2025).*

The passenger in this vehicle doesn’t have standing, and the evidence was in plain view. United States v. Nunez-Santana, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196260 (D.P.R. Oct. 1, 2025).*

A Nest camera video obtained from Google by warrant was properly authenticated. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.