CA11: Off-site copying of def’s cell phone after the SW’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B).

Off-site copying of defendant’s cell phone after the warrant’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B). United States v. Hernandez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4990 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2026).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that couldn’t win over (1) a judge in one county issuing a warrant for another county expressly permitted by state law or (2) recording a controlled buy. Horton v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34062 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 27, 2026).*

The police knew 716½ had a side stair and entrance, and the warrant was specific to that with 716 never being searched. United States v. Platek, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34091 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32684 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 18, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Ineffective assistance, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.