There was justification for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone in plain view because it might have evidence of a crime on it. The four month delay in obtaining a search warrant for the phone was reasonable under all the circumstances, including defendant\u2019s diminished possessory interest and the officer\u2019s heavy caseload. United States v. Blanchard, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113225 (D. Mass. June 16, 2021):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The government argues that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. Detective Sullivan was a newly minted detective who had never written a search warrant application prior to this case. He was getting up to speed while working on a large caseload. Federal authorities learned about the Phone in late August 2019. Over the course of a month, federal agents processed a large volume of evidence and in late September, applied for the search warrant for the Phone. When they searched the Phone, they found evidence connecting defendant to the firearm.<\/p>
The record shows that law enforcement held the Phone for a time period longer than was necessary to secure a warrant. However, weighed against defendant’s diminished possessory interest and the transfer of the case from the state to the federal authorities, the four-month delay was not unreasonable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Delays in getting search warrants for cell phones are commonplace, as is this holding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was justification for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone in plain view because it might have evidence of a crime on it. The four month delay in obtaining a search warrant for the phone was reasonable under all the circumstances, … Continue reading