It took nearly six months to search defendant\u2019s cell phone after he consented to it because of other important matters the officer was working on. \u201cThe Mitchell court acknowledged that officer workload considerations could justify a delay in seeking a warrant. Mitchell, 565 F.3d at 1353. Given Bradley’s diminished possessory interest in the Subject Phone and the diligence of Harmon to pursue this case, the Court finds that the Mitchell decision does not apply. In this case, under these circumstances, the balance of the competing interests weighs in favor of finding that the delay in securing the warrant did not violate Bradley’s Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d United States v. Bradley, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146533 (C.D. Ill. July 17, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145762 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2019).<\/p>\n
There was probable cause shown to the state trial judge for issuance of the search warrant. The IP address at the home was associated with child pornography, and defendant, one of the known residents there, was known to have had prior association with child pornography. United States v. Vandyck<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26045 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It took nearly six months to search defendant\u2019s cell phone after he consented to it because of other important matters the officer was working on. \u201cThe Mitchell court acknowledged that officer workload considerations could justify a delay in seeking a … Continue reading