E.D.N.Y.: It’s not actually required a cell phone be involved in a crime; it’s whether it is likely it was

It’s not constitutionally required to show that a cell phone was actually used in a crime for probable cause to search it. It’s enough that it likely could have. “A law enforcement-affiant’s personal expertise combined with attestation to a defendant’s membership in a criminal enterprise and ‘familiar[ity] with the manner in which gang members and individuals engaged in violent crime use cell phones in connection with such activity’ can establish probable cause for a cellphone warrant.” quoting United States v. Silva, 146 F.4th 183, 186, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2025). United States v. Rodriguez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31991 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).

When an officer fires his gun, any person hit is “seized.” Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4817 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026).

The record is undeveloped to make a determination whether the exclusionary rule should be applied. Remanded to the trial court for further hearings. People v. Conley, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 1330 (Feb. 9, 2026) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Probable cause, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.