CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20100 (1st Cir. July 9, 2026).

A citizen’s tip alone wouldn’t likely be probable cause. But, there’s more: “The citizen’s tip and marijuana residue, alone, provided a substantial basis for probable cause.” “Together with the unfired ammunition in the glove, the torn-off piece of a ziplock baggie (evidence of drug trafficking), the gang-related activity in the area, and Baling’s and Dilang’s felon status, the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause.” United States v. Dat, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19999 (8th Cir. July 9, 2026).*

Defendant can’t invoke Texas’s art. 38.23 exclusionary rule for an alleged illegal act before the alleged crime even occurred. Hram v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 6368 (Tex. App. – Amarillo July 8, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.