D.Kan.: Preservation request under SCA isn’t a search or seizure

A preservation request under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) for defendant’s Snapchat account isn’t an unreasonable search or seizure. Even if, “suppression would not be warranted because the FBI acted in good faith reliance on the Stored Communications Act. As a result, Colbert’s suppression motion is denied.” United States v. Colbert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85096 (D. Kan. May 9, 2024).

Considering the totality, the district court did not clearly err on the voluntariness of consent of a man handcuffed in a holding cell. “The district court concluded that Deputy Maleno did not threaten Shephard with a warrant or suggest that refusing consent would be futile, and Deputy Maleno had a reasonable basis for informing Shephard that a search warrant could be obtained because officers already had a warrant for Shephard’s person, home, and car. The court’s determination that this factor weighed in favor of voluntariness was not clearly erroneous.” United States v. Shephard, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11431 (9th Cir. May 10, 2024).*

Plaintiff’s complaint against these defendants are against private actors not subject to the Fourth Amendment. They move to dismiss and plaintiff doesn’t respond. Granted. Rowe v. Santilli, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85079 (D. Conn. May 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Private search, Social media warrants, Standards of review, Voluntariness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.