AL: Trial court erred in finding cell phone SW didn’t provide for seizure and then search

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone authorized both seizure and search of the phone, and the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that it did not permit a search, too. (The officer admitted working off a template cell phone warrant application and warrant, not that it mattered.) State v. Blakely, 2026 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 (Feb. 6, 2026).

“The Government in this case has made a strong showing demonstrating the reliability of the CS’s information. Not only was the information provided by the CS about Swift’s physical appearance, Swift’s business, and the vehicle Swift drives-all of which was independently corroborated by the officers-there was also physical surveillance, audio surveillance, and most importantly multiple controlled buys.” [Aren’t the buys enough?] United States v. Swift, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26116 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2026).*

Under Minnesota law, petitioner had no right to intervene in a criminal case for access to bodycams that had nothing to do with him. They were in the digital system for a motion to suppress and later became unnecessary. Hardin v. State, 2026 Minn. App. LEXIS 55 (Jan. 28, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.