W.D.Wash.: PC was shown for cell phone data for particular number and any number switched to, if provider knows it

Probable cause was shown for phone records for both the number sought and any number the provider knew that the owner had changed to, even without identifying it. And, good faith applied: “Therefore, even if the continuity provision within the warrant—or the warrant as a whole—should not have been issued, officers did not act unreasonably by reviewing the location data provided by T-Mobile.” United States v. Hartfield, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256906 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 10, 2025).

Franks “‘requires more than allegations, and a defendant satisfies this standard only by making an offer of proof, through affidavits, or other similarly reliable evidence.’ United States v. Berry, No. 24-cr-134 (PJS/TNL), 2024 WL 4895382, at 7 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171) (D. Minn. Oct. 17, 2024), R&R adopted, No. 24-cr-0134 (PJS/TNL), 2024 WL 4894789 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2024). Thus, Franks hearings are granted by courts in only ‘very limited circumstances.’ United States v. Ozar, 50 F.3d 1440, 1445 (8th Cir. 1995).” And this offer of proof fails. United States v. Rodriguez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256331 (D. Minn. Dec. 11, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.