D.Neb.: Just because the state seizes a cell phone doesn’t mean they know the Brady implications of the contents

Just because the state seizes a cell phone doesn’t mean they know the Brady implications of the contents. Moss v. Jeffreys, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45716 (D. Neb. Mar. 4, 2026) (§ 60.58 n.2)

2255 petitioner’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress the search of his cell phone is denied because defense counsel did litigate one. Smith v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45698 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2026).*

Plaintiff’s complaint he was unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment doesn’t satisfy the Rule 8 “short, plain statement” of facts that show a seizure. Keith v. Romain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45625 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2026).*

The affidavit for search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was based on probable cause, and, even if it wasn’t, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Rondon-Perez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45833 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.