NH: Exigency didn’t exist for cell phone pings

Officers got a warrant for a cell site simulator to look for defendant’s phone fearing he was leaving the country by air from JFK to Europe to evade arrest, but they didn’t use it. Also, the flight he was scheduled on was 2¼ days away (per HSI), and the crime was five months ago. They got exigency based pings and finally located him. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. True exigency was lacking; they had plenty of time to get a warrant. The state also argued inevitable discovery as an alternative but the trial court didn’t rule on that. Remanded to take that up. State v. Clegg, 2026 N.H. 11 (Mar. 17, 2026).

Inventory just barely wasn’t pretextual: “The Government narrowly met that burden in this case only because the Court found no evidence that Officer Hanson’s reliance on the inventory search exception was pretextual.” United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53282 (D. Minn. Mar. 16, 2026).*

It’s not ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to seek suppression on meritless grounds. Here, the entry was by consent from the victim. Acy v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53395 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Cell site simulators, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.