It\u2019s not constitutionally required to show that a cell phone was actually used in a crime for probable cause to search it. It\u2019s enough that it likely could have. \u201cA law enforcement-affiant’s personal expertise combined with attestation to a defendant’s membership in a criminal enterprise and \u2018familiar[ity] with the manner in which gang members and individuals engaged in violent crime use cell phones in connection with such activity\u2019 can establish probable cause for a cellphone warrant.\u201d quoting United States v. Silva, 146 F.4th 183, 186, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2025). United States v. Rodriguez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31991 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When an officer fires his gun, any person hit is \u201cseized.\u201d Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland<\/a>, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4817 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The record is undeveloped to make a determination whether the exclusionary rule should be applied. Remanded to the trial court for further hearings. People v. Conley, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 1330 (Feb. 9, 2026) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It\u2019s not constitutionally required to show that a cell phone was actually used in a crime for probable cause to search it. It\u2019s enough that it likely could have. \u201cA law enforcement-affiant’s personal expertise combined with attestation to a defendant’s … Continue reading