CA9: First cell phone warrant was issued day after seizure; second a year later wasn’t unreasonable

The day after defendant’s cell phone was seized, the government obtained a search warrant for it, and the warrant had a 90-day execution provision. Defendant concedes probable cause. The fact it took a year before a second warrant for the search of the phone was not unreasonable. United States v. Barnes, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9251 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2026).

The search warrant and affidavit are unsealed except for defendant’s address and DOB. United States v. Legardye, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67679 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was raised and denied originally, and his vague assertions of a Fourth Amendment violation don’t state a claim. Also, his change of plea statement contradicts his habeas petition. Denied. United States v. Garrett, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68517 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.