{"id":63148,"date":"2026-02-10T18:01:27","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T23:01:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63148"},"modified":"2026-02-10T18:01:27","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T23:01:27","slug":"al-trial-court-erred-in-finding-cell-phone-sw-didnt-provide-for-seizure-and-then-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63148","title":{"rendered":"AL: Trial court erred in finding cell phone SW didn’t provide for seizure and then search"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone authorized both seizure and search of the phone, and the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that it did not permit a search, too. (The officer admitted working off a template cell phone warrant application and warrant, not that it mattered.) State v. Blakely<\/a>, 2026 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 (Feb. 6, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Government in this case has made a strong showing demonstrating the reliability of the CS’s information. Not only was the information provided by the CS about Swift’s physical appearance, Swift’s business, and the vehicle Swift drives-all of which was independently corroborated by the officers-there was also physical surveillance, audio surveillance, and most importantly multiple controlled buys.\u201d [Aren\u2019t the buys enough?] United States v. Swift, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26116 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Minnesota law, petitioner had no right to intervene in a criminal case for access to bodycams that had nothing to do with him. They were in the digital system for a motion to suppress and later became unnecessary. Hardin v. State, 2026 Minn. App. LEXIS 55 (Jan. 28, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone authorized both seizure and search of the phone, and the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that it did not permit a search, too. (The officer admitted working off a template cell … Continue reading →<\/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":[5,44,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-informant-hearsay","category-warrant-execution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63148","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=63148"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63149,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63148\/revisions\/63149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}