Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized and a warrant obtained to search it, but it was protected by a passcode and the phone was not searched. So, a couple of months later, they tried again with a new warrant. The information on the locked-up phone and the probable cause didn\u2019t go stale. Also, using a passcode to merely see if it works to open a phone doesn\u2019t amount to a search. United States v. Ball, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77141 (D. Me. Apr. 7, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in opening nonlegal prisoner mail. Payne v. Nicely, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75497 (W.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Five controlled buys meant the CI\u2019s criminal history was less important than defendant thinks. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75170 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former defense counsel got the DNA warrant materials, but it disappeared somehow. The AUSA said they\u2019d deliver it promptly to new counsel but didn\u2019t. This will not be suppressed. It\u2019s not Brady material. United States v. Early, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77112 (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized and a warrant obtained to search it, but it was protected by a passcode and the phone was not searched. So, a couple of months later, they tried again with a new warrant. The information … Continue reading