D.D.C.: It took the govt years to search def’s computers, and the court has to balance that huge delay with the truth-seeking function in resolving it

In a fraud case, the government took years to search the computers. A second warrant was obtained for some. The government doesn’t get to undo the delay by a new warrant, but the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule applies. The court has to balance the deterrence interest with the truth-seeking function. United States v. Maresca, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76586 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2026).

Defendant was frisked at the time of his stop, but the government won’t be using that, so it’s moot. United States v. Mayorga-Ibarra, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79393 (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2026).*

Defendant’s car was lawfully being towed, so it could be inventoried. United States v. Clayton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10414 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2026).*

Apple’s find app said stolen Airpods were in a house when they were actually outside. Stating what the find app said was not a Franks violation. Briscoe v. St. Louis Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10405 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.