SnapChat warrant wasn\u2019t stale: \u201cThe passage of more than six months between Cardoso’s messages to Pyrtle and issuance of the October 2021 warrant did not undermine probable cause to believe that data from Pyrtle’s Snapchat account would provide evidence of marijuana trafficking.\u201d As in: the information is still there; it\u2019s not going anywhere. United States v. Pyrtle, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44729 (D. Mass. Mar. 12, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for warrant wasn\u2019t bare bones: \u201cThe affidavit in this case provided a direct link between the location, the Defendant, and the narcotics; established the narcotics had been viewed at the location within hours of applying for the warrant; and provided the basis for relying on the eyewitness. The Court, therefore, finds the warrant affidavit was valid.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44721 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut just as was the case for the Bridgeway Apt. search warrant, the Court finds that while there may be omissions or mistakes in the affidavits supporting the GPS warrants, none of those omissions or mistakes were intentional nor were they material to the magistrates’ issuance of any of the [four] GPS warrants.\u201d United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44758 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SnapChat warrant wasn\u2019t stale: \u201cThe passage of more than six months between Cardoso’s messages to Pyrtle and issuance of the October 2021 warrant did not undermine probable cause to believe that data from Pyrtle’s Snapchat account would provide evidence of … Continue reading