S.D.Cal.: Refusal to submit to warrant to show face to open cell phone was admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to comply with a search warrant for biometric opening of his cell phone (here, a face scan) was admissible at trial to show consciousness of guilt. “Given that ‘[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s … resistance to arrest … and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself,’ … the Court AGREES that evidence supporting Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with the court Order to unlock his phone at the time of his arrest is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.” United States v. Simons, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96683 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2026).

State law defines the § 1983 statute of limitations, but federal law controls when it accrues. Here, plaintiff’s own exhibits showed he knew about the claim in 2015, ten years before he sued. Jabr v. Dep’t of Taxation, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96424 (S.D. Ohio May 1, 2026).*

Plaintiff claims damages from a search warrant to obtain IP address information. He doesn’t have standing in the third-party records. Pryor v. Gregory, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96428 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2026).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.