D.Me.: Entering passcode into cell phone to see if it works is not a search

Defendant’s cell phone was seized and a warrant obtained to search it, but it was protected by a passcode and the phone was not searched. So, a couple of months later, they tried again with a new warrant. The information on the locked-up phone and the probable cause didn’t go stale. Also, using a passcode to merely see if it works to open a phone doesn’t amount to a search. United States v. Ball, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77141 (D. Me. Apr. 7, 2026).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in opening nonlegal prisoner mail. Payne v. Nicely, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75497 (W.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2026).*

Five controlled buys meant the CI’s criminal history was less important than defendant thinks. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75170 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 7, 2026).*

Former defense counsel got the DNA warrant materials, but it disappeared somehow. The AUSA said they’d deliver it promptly to new counsel but didn’t. This will not be suppressed. It’s not Brady material. United States v. Early, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77112 (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, DNA, Informant hearsay, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.