IN: Cell phone seized under SW could be searched later than the deadline in the warrant

The state had the forfeiture claimant’s cell phone in hand, but didn’t actually search it within the limit of the warrant. This was reasonable, following Wolf v. State, 266 P.3d 1169, 1174 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). Brown v. Eaton, 2021 Ind. App. LEXIS 36 (Feb. 10, 2021).

Police officers who executed a court order to seize property in a domestic relations case were entitled to qualified immunity. Orr v. Rogers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25938 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2021).*

The search warrant for premises that appeared to be single family was constitutionally adequate and particular. Defendant didn’t show a prima facie factual dispute to justify a hearing on his motion to suppress. He proffered records showing there were three separate residences on three floors. Still, this was not enough to overcome the state’s assertion that the property on its face was one. People v. Duval, 2021 NY Slip Op 00896, 2021 N.Y. LEXIS 48 (Feb. 11, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Qualified immunity, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.