E.D.Tenn.: No showing of nexus to cell phones in pharmacy fraud

In a pharmacy fraud case, there was no showing of nexus to pharmacists’ cell phones. Motion to suppress cell phones is granted. Also, under Franks, with an omission a higher standard of intent to mislead applies. Also, the affidavit is viewed as a whole, no line-by-line. United States v. Haney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14804 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2026).*

There was plenty for nexus to defendant’s house. “Even if a probable cause nexus did not exist, a hypothetical hard to square with existing precedent, the good faith exception would apply.” United States v. Sullivan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14829 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2026).*

After the ticket was issued, reasonable suspicion existed: “Any one of these factors, standing alone, would be insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. In isolation, no single fact is dispositive of wrongdoing. However, when they are considered together, as required by the totality of the circumstances test, reasonable suspicion is met. Specifically, it was reasonable that Sergeant Kilpela suspected Ms. Conchas was trafficking narcotics. Thus, although the mission of the traffic stop had concluded when Sergeant Kilpela requested her consent to search the vehicle, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment to extend the seizure.” United States v. Conchas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15022 (D. Mont. Jan. 27, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.