{"id":47237,"date":"2021-02-13T12:54:37","date_gmt":"2021-02-13T17:54:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=47237"},"modified":"2021-02-13T15:24:08","modified_gmt":"2021-02-13T20:24:08","slug":"in-cell-phone-seized-under-sw-could-be-searched-later-than-the-deadline-in-the-warrant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=47237","title":{"rendered":"IN: Cell phone seized under SW could be searched later than the deadline in the warrant"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The state had the forfeiture claimant\u2019s cell phone in hand, but didn\u2019t actually search it within the limit of the warrant. This was reasonable, following <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1794565150458599207&amp;q=266+P.3d+1169&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1006\">Wolf v. State, 266 P.3d 1169, 1174 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011)<\/a>. <a href=\"https:\/\/public.courts.in.gov\/Decisions\/api\/Document\/Opinion?Id=uGAvFWmbbnVHEZgnf8D5OVdKvlw6OyEbYnSOWxQjzjNvXy2WYT6VPPrjQWosZ4G_0\">Brown v. Eaton<\/a>, 2021 Ind. App. LEXIS 36 (Feb. 10, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Police officers who executed a court order to seize property in a domestic relations case were entitled to qualified immunity. Orr v. Rogers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25938 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The search warrant for premises that appeared to be single family was constitutionally adequate and particular. Defendant didn\u2019t show a prima facie factual dispute to justify a hearing on his motion to suppress. He proffered records showing there were three separate residences on three floors. Still, this was not enough to overcome the state\u2019s assertion that the property on its face was one. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nycourts.gov\/reporter\/3dseries\/2021\/2021_00896.htm\">People v. Duval<\/a>, 2021 NY Slip Op 00896, 2021 N.Y. LEXIS 48 (Feb. 11, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The state had the forfeiture claimant\u2019s cell phone in hand, but didn\u2019t actually search it within the limit of the warrant. This was reasonable, following Wolf v. State, 266 P.3d 1169, 1174 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). Brown v. Eaton, 2021 &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=47237\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,65,40,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-particularity","category-qualified-immunity","category-warrant-execution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=47237"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47259,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47237\/revisions\/47259"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=47237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=47237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=47237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}