D.Mont.: This ping warrant was based on PC and was not governed by Chatrie

This cell phone ping warrant was based on a showing of probable cause. It was a one-time deal and didn’t involve the factors of Chatrie and geofence warrants. United States v. Kunz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148872 (D. Mont. July 6, 2026).

Defendant’s stop was justified by a traffic offense, and he contradicted what officers had just observed, and then he attempted to flee. There was justification for extending the stop. Officers had his cell phones in hand when he fled. Their seizure was reasonable. United States v. Berry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148778 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2026).*

There was reasonable suspicion to continue the stop 24 minutes to wait for the drug dog which alerted. United States v. Carroll, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148675 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.