E.D.N.Y.: SW request to search cell phone seized two months earlier was unreasonable

“The government seeks a warrant to search two cellular phones that have been in its possession for more than two months since the time to execute a prior search warrant lapsed. In United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit held that a delay of less than half that length violated the Fourth Amendment. Smith stated and clarified principles by which to determine when law enforcement’s delay in seeking a warrant to search a seized personal electronic storage and communication device make the retention and search of that device unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. 967 F.3d at 213. Applying those principles, I conclude that the warrant application must be denied.” In re Application for Search Warrant for Two Cellular Phones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169896 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026).

The police request to see defendant’s security guard license was not a seizure, but one did occur later, and with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Burvick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22969 (2d Cir. July 31, 2026).*

NYPD ordering plaintiff to leave his transitional housing place under threat of arrest didn’t effect a seizure. Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Servs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169984 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonableness, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.