N.D.Ga.: Slight delay in searching a cell phone of a person in custody who couldn’t possess it was reasonable

Because he’s in custody, defendant has a diminished expectation of getting his cell phone back. The slight delay in getting a warrant has no case law cited in support, not that it matters. United States v. Holloman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6911 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2026).

“Even confining our own analysis to uncontested information and including omitted facts, the Whisenand Affidavit supported a probable cause finding in spades.” Economan v. Luttrull, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 906 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2026).*

Defendant received constitutionally adequate notice of forfeiture, certified mail to the jail twice, which he claims he never saw. United States v. Marte, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6918 (D.N.H. Jan. 14, 2026).* [What? Jails fail to deliver mail inside? They sure do. Or take four weeks to deliver something after obvious receipt.]

Unjustifiably slamming plaintiff to the ground states a claim against one defendant, not the others. Humble v. Harris Cnty., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7036 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Probable cause, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.