The search of defendant\u2019s cell phone did not unreasonably exceed the search warrant for it which was necessarily broad. \u201cAs a threshold matter, the search did not exceed the scope of the warrant. Without contesting the validity of the warrant itself, Defendant concedes \u2018the warrant authorized the wholesale search of several types of data from [Defendant’s] cell phone including messages, multimedia files, web browser and internet files.\u2019 To this point, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that, \u2018[b]ecause seizable materials are seldom found neatly separated from their non-seizable counterparts,\u2019 it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to authorize a wholesale seizure if the supporting affidavit explains why such a seizure is necessary. Here, the supporting affidavit explains that people carry and use cell phones before, during, and after the commission of crimes; the data streams left behind from the cell phone usage can include \u2018GPS locations, contact lists, e-mails, SIMS cards, pictures, videos or audio files, and electronic data.\u2019 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply when officers act in good faith on a facially-valid warrant. Because the warrant in this case justifiably authorized a broad search of Defendant’s cell phone, the subsequent search did not exceed the scope of the warrant.\u201d United States v. O’Dell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159960 (D. Alaska Sept. 2, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search of defendant\u2019s cell phone did not unreasonably exceed the search warrant for it which was necessarily broad. \u201cAs a threshold matter, the search did not exceed the scope of the warrant. Without contesting the validity of the warrant … Continue reading