MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

Officers went to New Hampshire on a criminal investigation for a Massachusetts crime, and they ended up seizing defendant’s cell phone to preserve evidence, bringing it back to Massachusetts where it was searched. The common law power of citizen’s arrest doesn’t apply to property seizures. As to the conflict of laws question, the Massachusetts exclusionary rule would apply, not New Hampshire’s. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 201 (Apr. 25, 2025).

In a hate crime prosecution, the government showed probable cause to search for defendant’s car and cell phones located in it. There were social media postings after the alleged crime. The good faith exception applies in any event. A camcorder seized under that warrant was outside the particularity showing, but the government won’t be using it at trial. United States v. Bernard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78398 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2025).*

The cell phone warrant obtained by Postal Inspectors was based on probable cause and was reasonable and not general. Pictures on the phone linked defendant to several crimes. United States v. Hughes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78174 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Common law, Conflict of laws, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.