CA6: Defs’ use of Facebook to discuss their crime justified SW to Facebook

Defendants used Facebook to discuss their criminal enterprise, and the warrant for Facebook was not overbroad. United States v. Fordham, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21811 (6th Cir. July 22, 2026).*

A controlled buy arranged through defendant’s cell phone supported the warrant to track it. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161950 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2026).*

Going to a controlled buy and coming home after is nexus for the home. United States v. Rash, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162139 (N.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*

The subject premises was a three unit building, and the affidavit was specific as to which one was to be searched, with attached photographs. Defendant’s overbreadth challenge fails. United States v. Jimenez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162331 (D. Mass. July 22, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Particularity, Social media warrants, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.