NY: Second SW for phone a year later after first SW failed to show PC wasn’t timely

The first cell phone search warrant was rejected for lack of probable cause. It only provided a generic description of cell phones as repositories of potential evidence without linking it to this case. The phone was still in the evidence locker, and a second search warrant was sought a year later. This effort attempted to show much more toward probable cause, but the delay in issuance made the second warrant unreasonable. People v. Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 23161, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2547, 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 1296 (N.Y. Co. May 24, 2023).

The stop revealed an open container violation. That permitted a further search of the car [I’d disagree] for further open containers, and a gun was found. It did not permit a search of defendant’s wallet where meth was found. United States v. Webb, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91920 (D. Utah May 24, 2023).*

Habeas petitioner litigated his search in state court and appealed it so federal court can’t consider it. In re O’Donnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92089 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023).*

Flight on seeing police officers in a high crime area is itself reasonable suspicion under Wardlow. The trial court erred in finding it was not. Commonwealth v. Barnes, 2023 PA Super 90, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 220 (May 26, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.