Cal.6: Cell phone SW was limited to a specific date and time for certain materials, but the search far exceeded it; suppressed, no GFE

The search warrant here was issued for evidence of a sexual assault of an adult. There were pretext text messages sent by the police pretending to be the victim to get an admission. When the search warrant was executed, child pornography was found. The warrant was limited to a particular date and time, and the search far exceeded that. “Because [the officers] did not act within the scope of the search warrant in conducting their search of DiMaggio’s cellphone, but, rather, intentionally disregarded and substantially exceeded the limitations in the warrant’s scope, the good faith exception does not apply.” Dimaggio v. Superior Court, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 538 (6th Dist. Aug. 30, 2024).

The trial court did not err in admitting conversations recorded by the other party. This issue is well settled. State v. Mosley., 2024 R.I. LEXIS 86 (Aug. 28, 2024).*

A search warrant was executed at plaintiff’s house using tear gas to get him out. Except he wasn’t home, and that apparently should have been obvious. $50,000 damage was caused. The complaint was dismissed by the district court relying on an after action report (AAR) that wasn’t in the record. Reversed. Cuervo v. Sorenson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22092 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Scope of search, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.