Where the officers impermissibly delayed obtaining a search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone, the good faith exception does not apply. The initial seizure of the phone was valid because it was left at a crime scene. United States v. Tisdol, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107821 (D.Conn. June 9, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendants\u2019 claim a protective sweep was unreasonable isn\u2019t preserved. Even if it was, it would be harmless error. United States v. Mills<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17140 (3d Cir. June 9, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Redacting the CI\u2019s information here was shown necessary to protect her. Probable cause was clearly shown. People v. Bryant<\/a>, 2021 NY Slip Op 03603, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3686 (2d Dept. June 9, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Old information about meth possession was properly factored into a warrant application for a grow operation. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Sutton, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107226 (W.D. Ky. June 7, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Where the officers impermissibly delayed obtaining a search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone, the good faith exception does not apply. The initial seizure of the phone was valid because it was left at a crime scene. United States v. Tisdol, … Continue reading