S.D.N.Y.: Seizing a cell phone in plain view with PC for later SW is reasonable

“[T]he court must conclude that probable cause existed to seize Kurland’s phone at the time of his arrest and that the plain view exception permitted the government to seize it. To be sure: simply seeing a device in plain view near an arrestee cannot be sufficient to seize it without knowing much more about the previous potentially criminal uses to which the device has been put. But where, as here, the government has amassed such information, later seeks a warrant for the device’s search, and does so without unreasonable delay, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.” United States v. Chierchio, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30758 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022).

“It is clear that Gist-Holden believes the agents should have put in more work investigating King and his friend, who he contends set him up. But arguing the authorities could have (or should have) done more doesn’t necessitate a Franks hearing.” United States v. Gist-Holden, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30554 (N.D.Ind. Feb. 22, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.