Just because the government hasn\u2019t yet accessed defendant\u2019s iPhone because it can\u2019t crack the code to unlock it doesn\u2019t mean that defendant can get it back under Rule 41(g). It\u2019s still potential evidence. United States v. Morgan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39884 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A trash container search produced evidence of drugs likely associated with defendant\u2019s home, and the search warrant was sufficiently particular. United States v. Hervey<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7222 (10th Cir. Mar, 9, 2020).* \u201c[T]he Court finds that the confidential informant’s tip was sufficiently corroborated by law enforcement’s independent investigation. Thus, the Magistrate Judge had a \u2018substantial basis\u2019 within the four corners of the Wyrzykowski Affidavit for concluding that there was probable cause to find evidence of a marijuana grow operation at the Residence.\u201d Besides, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Patterson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40378 (D.V.I. Mar. 9, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Just because the government hasn\u2019t yet accessed defendant\u2019s iPhone because it can\u2019t crack the code to unlock it doesn\u2019t mean that defendant can get it back under Rule 41(g). It\u2019s still potential evidence. United States v. Morgan, 2020 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading
<\/p>\n\n\n\n