NY4: Cell phone SW suppressed for no showing of PC or particularity

“Here, the search warrant authorized and directed the police to search for, inter alia, ‘cellular phones (including contents)’ located in defendant’s vehicle. Significantly, the search was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion over the search to the executing officers …. The search warrant states that an affidavit from a police investigator provided the basis for the finding of probable cause for the search. Although that affidavit contained information about the crime and defendant’s exchange of text messages with the victim before the crime, the mere mention in a search warrant of an affidavit or application ‘does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity’ where the search warrant contains no language incorporating that document …. We therefore conclude that the court should have granted the motion.” People v. Wiggins, 2024 NY Slip Op 03614, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3667 (4th Dept. July 3, 2024). (Good faith goes unmentioned.)

The lack of an individualized determination of suspicionless supervised release searches requires remand. United States v. Maio, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16282 (2d Cir. July 3, 2024).*

There were two grounds to stop defendant: His lane violation and then not stopping at the stop line. Challenging only the former still leaves the latter. State v. Quinones, 2024-Ohio-2552 (2d Dist. July 3, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.