E.D.Ky.: If cell phone warrant is overbroad, remedy is to suppress the overbroad part, not all

“Assuming, without deciding, that the Cellphone Warrant was overbroad due to lack of a timeframe limitation, this finding would not mean that all evidence seized under the cellphone warrant is subject to suppression. The proper remedy is to suppress only the evidence that was generated during time periods for which probable cause was not established. A finding of temporal overbreadth ‘does not require suppression of all of the items seized pursuant to the warrant[. Rather,] the proper approach to this dilemma is to sever the infirm portion of the search warrant from the remainder which passes constitutional muster.’ …” United States v. Bryson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201150 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 22, 2025).

This search warrant “set forth ample indicia of probable cause.” United States v. Busbee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200311 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*

“Multiple factors coalesced here to provide Agent Grant with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing: Garza-Alaniz was driving from an area of Texas near the Mexico border known as a source of illegal drugs all the way to New York City without a place to stay or any specific plans for what to do during his purported week-long vacation with his girlfriend; he did not have a driver’s license (and neither did his girlfriend); he was travelling with a common drug smuggling vessel; he initially was more nervous than the average motorist stopped by police; and he remained so notwithstanding Agent Grant’s efforts to put him at ease.” [The government’s other factors aren’t considered.] United States v. Garza-Alaniz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200292 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Overbreadth, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.