MD: Waiting 20 days to get cell phone SW after seizure was reasonable here

Police seized defendant’s cell phone and sought to have it examined. It went into the queue at the forensic unit, and, when it was ready to be searched, they then sought a warrant. They waited because they believed there was only a 10-day window after the warrant issued. The delay was reasonable given the explanation. Gambino v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 287 (Mar. 17, 2026).

A label-less distinctive promethazine bottle in plain view was at least reasonable suspicion. Here, however, coupled with defendant’s known propensity for drugs and violence, it was probable cause. People v. Cummings, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 2274 (Mar. 18, 2026)* (unpublished).

Defense counsel isn’t ineffective for not anticipating changes in the law and making motions to suppress that were foreclosed at the time. Williams v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 288 (Mar. 17, 2026)* (unpublished).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.