D.Colo.: Large volume of emails can be seized for later narrowing search and still be particular

The email warrant was particular enough. While a large volume of information was provided by Google, it was then particularly searched, and that satisfies Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Garcia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (D. Colo. Jan. 16, 2026).

A 141-day delay in getting a federal search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was not unreasonable, all things considered. United States v. Thibou, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1299 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026).*

The record is incomplete on whether defendant consented. Any ruling would be based on a hypothetical. State v. Anderson, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 16, 2026).*

ICE protestors have standing to assert Fourth Amendment claims against unlawful uses of force against them because they will continue. The possibility of a recurrence is more than speculative. Arrests of peaceful protestors is enjoined. High likelihood of success on the merits. Tincher v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9436 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Cell phones, E-mail, Particularity, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.