WA: Using software to search a cell phone doesn’t violate particularity

Use of software to search a cell phone did not violate the particularity of the warrant. The Fourth Amendment and the state constitution are intended to prevent a general rummaging, and the use of software facilitates people not looking at things not contraband. “This did not permit a general rummaging; it was akin to a warrant allowing a search of a residence for controlled substances and indicia of ownership.” State v. Ortega, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 1367 (July 11, 2024).

The first time informant here was really a witness to defendant’s possession of child porn on his cell phone because she saw it looking at his phone. Inevitable discovery is also found to apply. State v. O’Neal, 2024 S.D. 40 (July 10, 2024).*

Defendant’s firearm was in plain view in his waistband when he got out of the car. United States v. Walker, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123419 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2024).*

On the totality, defendant consented to the search. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123437 (N.D. Ga. July 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Informant hearsay, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.