D.Minn.: A cell phone tracking order was permitted where there was an arrest warrant for defendant

“Despite a dearth of binding precedent, this Court is satisfied that the existence of an active arrest warrant provides a sufficient basis for a magistrate judge to find probable cause to issue a tracking warrant allowing law enforcement to monitor a fugitive’s location, and Mr. Reed has cited no authority to the contrary in this Circuit or any other. See United States v. Ellerman, No. 22-cr-116, 2023 WL 111982, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2023) (‘Mr. Ellerman cites no authority for the idea that using a judicially approved tracking warrant to locate the subject of a lawful arrest warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, and the Court has found no cases that support such an argument.’).” United States v. Reed, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175085 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2024).

Plaintiff identified himself by name and where he lived, so there was no justification for arresting him for failing to identify himself by not providing a physical ID. Jennings v. Smith, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24513 (11th Cir. Sep. 27, 2024).*

State law permitted vehicle impoundments for defendant’s offense. The officer also sought alternatives permitted by state case law. The impoundment wasn’t unreasonable. United States v. Zamora, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24516 (9th Cir. Sep. 26, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Inventory, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.