Defendant had standing to contest a search of this cell phone. While he didn’t attach an affidavit, the motion and other papers say it’s his, as does the consent form. Nothing suggests it’s not. The police got a warrant out of an abundance of caution, and it was based on probable cause. “Finally, Torres’s argument pertaining to the cellphone’s location data is unpersuasive as well. He states that the warrant does not explain how its location pertains to the illegal possession charges. The warrant, however, explains that ‘the evidence on a device can also indicate who has used or controlled the device. This ‘user attribution’ evidence is analogous to the search for ‘indicia of occupancy’ while executing a search warrant at a residence.’ (Docket No. 91-7 at p. 11.) So, the warrant does explain why the cellphone’s location is relevant.” United States v. Torres-Díaz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D.P.R. June 20, 2025).

“Defendant argues that constitutional law, Michigan law, and federal law require that a warrant be properly recorded, and that failure to do so warrants suppression of the evidence in this case. The reason this argument is wrong is because the Fourth Amendment itself does not require that a warrant be recorded after its execution, other federal law requirements do not apply to a state-issued warrant executed by state officers, and state law requirements are irrelevant in determining what evidence is admissible in federal criminal proceedings.” United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117882 (E.D. Mich. June 20, 2025).*

Defendant’s claim the search warrant materials were all created after the search fails in his Franks challenge. United States v. Bowman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15312 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025).*