W.D.Pa.: SW for cell phone on def at time of drug arrest was particular

Defendant’s cell phone particularity objection to the warrant fails because it showed (1) crime involved, (2) ID’ed them as found on him at time with a gun and drugs, and (3) showed nexus. Also, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Morgan-Graham, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231811 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2026)*:

Here, the warrants to search Defendant’s cell phones satisfy the three particularity components. First, Special Agent Wilner, who completed the Affidavit in support of the warrants, specified the offenses under investigation — that is, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). … Second, the Affidavit described the place to be searched by specifically identifying the three cell phones to be examined. … Notably, the Affidavit stated that Defendant was in possession of three cell phones when he was searched incident to arrest, at which time a Glock pistol equipped with a loaded magazine and a Glock conversion device, along with suspected narcotics, also were recovered from him. … Finally, in light of that information, the Affidavit identified the items to be seized by their relation to the alleged crimes. … Because the warrants do not lack particularity, they are not overbroad, and therefore suppression is unwarranted.

However, even if the Court were to find that the warrants were overbroad, suppression still would not be appropriate because it was reasonable for law enforcement to rely on the warrants to search Defendant’s three cell phones pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.