{"id":56894,"date":"2024-01-23T08:51:22","date_gmt":"2024-01-23T13:51:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=56894"},"modified":"2024-01-23T11:51:09","modified_gmt":"2024-01-23T16:51:09","slug":"cal-5-defective-notice-of-facebook-warrant-under-calecpa-doesnt-require-suppression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=56894","title":{"rendered":"Cal.5: Defective notice of Facebook warrant under CalECPA doesn&#8217;t require suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Defendant\u2019s Facebook account was accessed by a search warrant issued under CalECPA. The notice provision was not complied with by the state, but the court declines to suppress here. The standard for suppression in CalECPA is the same as for other warrants, and defendant\u2019s notice ultimately came through later disclosures, including criminal discovery. The court\u2019s not saying that it might not suppress in a case better for the defense than this one, but defendant did get some full notice of the search. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.courts.ca.gov\/opinions\/documents\/F084307.PDF\">People v. Campos<\/a>, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 31 (5th Dist. Jan. 22, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The affidavit for warrant showed probable cause, nexus, and particularity to seize defendant\u2019s electronic devices. A subsequent warrant was required for their search, but defendant consented. In re United States, No. 23-222 (JRT\/DLM), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10124 (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An anonymous caller said two juveniles with particular dress and backpacks were likely involved in firing a gun at night. When police arrived minutes later, there were only two juveniles matching the description. The stop was with reasonable suspicion. In the Int. of K.B.J., 2024 La. App. LEXIS 142 (La. App. 1st Cir. Jan. 19, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s Facebook account was accessed by a search warrant issued under CalECPA. The notice provision was not complied with by the state, but the court declines to suppress here. The standard for suppression in CalECPA is the same as for &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=56894\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,12,44,118,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-computer-searches","category-informant-hearsay","category-social-media-warrants","category-warrant-execution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=56894"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56907,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56894\/revisions\/56907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=56894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=56894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=56894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}