E.D.Mo.: Ubiquity of cell phones here satisfied nexus without stating it

This is about a search warrant issued in an arson investigation and defendant’s claim of lack of nexus. The ubiquity of cell phones means that the officers did not even have to state that they knew defendant had one. United States v. Reed, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60744 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 27, 2026), adopted 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Defendant’s girlfriend did a private search of a flash drive she found which had child pornography on it. She took it to the police. They looked for a few minutes just to verify, and then they got a warrant for it. This did not appreciable exceed the private search [if at all]. State v. Schullo, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS 317 (Mar. 24, 2026).*

The use of a wrist lock for pain compliance to remove a protestor from the Vermont Capitol was not clearly established as excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Zorn v. Linton, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1471 (Mar. 23, 2026)* (per curiam. 6-3), reversing Linton v. Zorn, 135 F.4th 19 (2d Cir. 2025).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Private search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.