CA9: Taking too long to get SW for phone violated clearly established law

The officer here violated clearly established law by taking too long to apply for a warrant to search plaintiff’s cell phone. Plaintiff promptly sought its return, but that was denied because the officer hadn’t got a warrant yet. Langham v. Noyd, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33559 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (2-1, and unpublished).

“To summarize: (1) Mr. Kennard has not made the requisite showing that the affidavit includes any false statement, so there are no grounds to support a Franks hearing; (2) the affidavit contains facts setting out a sufficient evidentiary basis to associate the Whoppdog Instagram account with Mr. Kennard; and, (3) even if references to the Whoppdog Instagram account were excised from the affidavit, the remaining facts create sufficient probable cause for a search of the location data of the 6766 Phone.” There was also probable cause for the warrant for his place. United States v. Kennard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265189 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant being involved in drug trafficking when he was stopped. United States v. Bugg, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264754 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 23, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.