\u201cThe government seeks a warrant to search two cellular phones that have been in its possession for more than two months since the time to execute a prior search warrant lapsed. In United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit held that a delay of less than half that length violated the Fourth Amendment. Smith stated and clarified principles by which to determine when law enforcement’s delay in seeking a warrant to search a seized personal electronic storage and communication device make the retention and search of that device unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. 967 F.3d at 213. Applying those principles, I conclude that the warrant application must be denied.\u201d In re Application for Search Warrant for Two Cellular Phones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169896 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The police request to see defendant\u2019s security guard license was not a seizure, but one did occur later, and with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Burvick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22969 (2d Cir. July 31, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
NYPD ordering plaintiff to leave his transitional housing place under threat of arrest didn\u2019t effect a seizure. Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Servs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169984 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe government seeks a warrant to search two cellular phones that have been in its possession for more than two months since the time to execute a prior search warrant lapsed. In United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198 (2d … Continue reading