DE: Instagram SW was narrowly limited by time

Instagram warrants were supported by probable cause showing both that crimes occurred and that evidence would be found in the account, based on the detailed facts in the affidavits. The warrants satisfied the particularity requirement as the date ranges were tailored to the probable cause, and the breadth of data categories was justified by defendant’s use of Instagram as an instrumentality of his crimes. As to a cell phone, defendant didn’t have standing. Coffield v. State, 2025 Del. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 14, 2025).

Officers had a DNA warrant for defendant. Because of his history of violence they reasonably detained and handcuffed him. He spontaneously admitted to having a gun. United States v. Stiff, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6985 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 14, 2025).*

Detaining plaintiff at gunpoint was reasonable. The bodycam shows him running into another person with his truck, and he was hostile to the officers. Spratlen v. Rainey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237222 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6461 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Seizure, Social media warrants. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.