D.C.Cir.: SW for multiple cell phones was valid because all were shown to be involved

This search warrant for multiple cell phones showed enough that multiple cell phones were involved in the offense under investigation, and, thus, the warrant was not overbroad, distinguishing United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017) where there was a lesser showing. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17966 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024).

Ten documents found in the search of Project Veritas were not protected by attorney-client privilege because they involved efforts to conceal the crime, not get legal advice. Meads v. United States (In re Search Warrant Dated November 3, 2021.), 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18023 (2d Cir. July 23, 2024).*

The smell of burnt marijuana in a car is probable cause to search the entire passenger compartment, even two rows back from the front seat. United States v. Jackson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129403 (N.D. Okla. July 23, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.