D.Ariz.: USPO can turn phone seized in supervised release over to FBI

It was not improper for the PO to turn defendant’s phone over to the FBI to search it when it was already lawfully seized. “This is not a stalking horse case.” The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Fuller, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237560 (D. Ariz. Dec. 30, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7662 (D. Ariz. Jan. 14, 2025).

Plaintiff’s false arrest claim for domestic violence against police officers fails because there was probable cause. Shepard v. Does, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8884 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2025).*

Petitioner’s CoA request is almost summarily denied under Stone v. Powell. Diaz v. Lumpkin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1084 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025).*

The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in defendant’s arrest, and, even if they did, the specific act wasn’t clearly established at the time. Cantu v. Austin Police Dep’t, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1127 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.