Search warrants are directed at things and information, and the fact officers didn\u2019t know the owner of the cell phone didn\u2019t mean the warrant was invalid. The phone revealed internet searches about a homicide before it was public knowledge. State v. Jones, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 125 (Mar. 25, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks motion fails because there\u2019s really nothing materially false. Officers in fact had an arrest warrant for him, too. United States v. McCormick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51844 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The USMJ didn\u2019t look at the alleged child pornography images, and they were described. The warrant was at least relied upon in good faith. \u201cAfter combining these facts with the two Dost factors that are present, it is a close question as to whether the warrant provided sufficient detail to enable a magistrate judge to conclude that the image was CSAM. Since \u2018the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases \u2026 should largely be determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants,\u2019 I ultimately do not need to decide this issue as the good-faith exception applies even if probable cause did not exist.\u201d United States v. Casher, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51891 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Search warrants are directed at things and information, and the fact officers didn\u2019t know the owner of the cell phone didn\u2019t mean the warrant was invalid. The phone revealed internet searches about a homicide before it was public knowledge. State … Continue reading