E.D.N.Y.: SW for cell phone at border after warrantless search was reasonable

CBP seized and searched defendant’s cell phones at the border under existing authority. After subsequent case law called that into question, the government sought a search warrant for the phones disclosing all the facts. The subsequent warrant was valid. United States v. Walden, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222763 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2025).

Unreasonable killing of a family dog is a seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment. Bledsoe v. City of Caddo Valley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221931 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 14, 2025).*

“Plaintiff alleges only that he was forcefully removed from his vehicle without his consent. Such allegations are insufficient to establish a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” He refused an order to get out of the car. “Plaintiff responded, ‘I do not consent to any of this.’ … Officer Neal answered, ‘Shut up, this isn’t Tik Tok.’” Davis v. Olivera, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221894 (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2025).*

Ohio provides a mechanism to challenge searches and seizures in state court, so there’s no 2254 remedy just because you don’t like the outcome. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222816 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Border search, Cell phones, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.