GA: Cell phone call SW was limited and not overbroad

The warrant for the cell phone’s call data was limited in time and reasonable. “Because, using a practical margin of flexibility, the date ranges in the search warrants were as specific as the circumstances and nature of the activity under investigation permitted, the warrants were not overbroad and insufficiently particular in this respect.” Perez v. State, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 118 (May 31, 2023).

When the officer asked for permission to look at and search his phone, defendant handed it over. That was consent to search. United States v. Butler, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265 (11th Cir. May 30, 2023).*

Sometimes officers executing a warrant don’t seize everything they’re supposed to. “[T]here is no obligation for law enforcement to seize every piece of evidence available when executing a search warrant. Additionally, retrieving such overlooked evidence later from a cooperating witness is not misconduct.” United States v. Cammarata, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93423 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Overbreadth, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.