CA10: Apple SW was insufficiently particular, but GFE still applies

“We agree with Kimberley that the Apple search warrant was insufficiently particularized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the Government has shown the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applies and thus the evidence from the Apple account did not need to be suppressed and excluded from the evidence presented at trial.” United States v. Tew, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9804 (10th Cir. Apr. 6, 2026).*

Police entered, secured the premises, then sought a warrant. Defendant claims that defense counsel was ineffective for not getting bodycam videos that could have shown others entering the house while police were waiting and planted the drugs is incredible. United States v. Pickett, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73295 (W.D. Va. Apr. 1, 2026).*

Nervous and evasive behavior is a “pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion” on the totality (Wardlow) but more is required. Here, defendant was in a high crime area and gave conflicting stories about his criminal history. This was all reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kendrix, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74016 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Nighttime search, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.