C.D.Ill.: Easily entered iPhone moots how passcode was obtained

Even if the passcode was obtained unreasonably, this iPhone would have been gotten into anyway. The officer had done it before on these earlier models, and that’s inevitable discovery. United States v. Fassero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265273 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2025).

A suppression hearing isn’t required merely when the sufficiency of the information in the affidavit is challenged. Fairly read, the affidavit shows probable cause. The good faith exception doesn’t even have to be considered. United States v. Favors, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265628 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 24, 2025).*

Just “because the issuing judge and the affiant, law enforcement center, and/or jail share the same address” doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. Owens v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264582 (D.S.C. Nov. 21, 2025).*

The impoundment of plaintiff’s car being unreasonable, the inventory was not valid. Langham v. Spencer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33555 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Inventory, Neutral and detached magistrate, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.