D.D.C.: Use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial

The use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial. United States v. Blythe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231852 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2025) (interesting read).

Just because defense counsel didn’t appeal a losing Fourth Amendment issue doesn’t make counsel ineffective. Scales v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231972 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2025).*

The child pornography warrant here was particular and based on probable cause. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Githens, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231954 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025).*

The CI’s information was meager at best, and there was no corroboration. Moreover, defendant’s Franks showing is sufficient to get a hearing. Remanded. United States v. Felton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.