S.D.Ohio: Affidavit alleged only that drug dealers use cell phones, and that’s not PC; but GFE saves it

The affidavit for warrant for a cell phone relies entirely on the general use of cell phones in the drug trade. There’s no more, and that’s not probable cause. Still, however, the good faith exception saves it. United States v. Darks, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243249 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2026).

The validity of defendant’s statement depends on the validity of the stop. The district court found the stop was with probable cause of a traffic violation, so it’s valid. United States v. Kendrick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 31995 (11th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026).*

Plaintiff was on notice of his search claim, at the latest when it was mentioned during his criminal trial, which was two years and one month before the suit was filed, so it’s barred by limitations. Kunkle v. Holcomb, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 32254 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.