Cell phone found in the car of one reasonably believed to be a drug dealer was searched by a warrant that was particular and with probable cause. United States v. Chambers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53490 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2025)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
While it is true that cell phone searches raise acute privacy concerns, Defendant’s argument that the warrant is invalid for lack of a time limitation is unavailing. See [Doc. 238, p. 16]. The warrant here specifically enumerates the types of data to be searched for, directed at finding evidence of Defendant’s suspected drug activities, thereby confining the search to drug-related evidence and satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because the warrants indicated that these phones were recovered from a vehicle that contained illegal narcotics and was last driven from a trap house, and in light of all the other facts in this case, there was a fair probability that these phones contained evidence of the ongoing conspiracy. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cell phone found in the car of one reasonably believed to be a drug dealer was searched by a warrant that was particular and with probable cause. United States v. Chambers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53490 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, … Continue reading