S.D.N.Y.: Just because a cell phone was found in def’s car doesn’t mean he has standing to challenge its search

Defendant didn’t show standing to challenge the search of a cell phone found in his car that wasn’t his. United States v. Pulliam, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64356 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).

A search warrant for a Jan. 6th defendant produced child pornography. Whether his pardon applies to the child pornography case is remanded to the district court for consideration. United States v. Costianes, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8022 (4th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025).*

Officers executing a search warrant saw a sweatshirt with evidentiary value. Rather than just seize it, they got a second warrant for it, and it was valid. State v. Stewart, 2025-Ohio-1189 (8th Dist. Apr. 3, 2025).*

Plaintiff stated enough to overcome qualified immunity in this unjustified excessive force case.
Santander v. Salazar, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7996 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Qualified immunity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.