\u201cSuppression of digital photographs, videos and bank records that fell outside the April 1, 2019 through October 25, 2019 timeframe seized from the Subject Device is not warranted, as the December 2020 Warrant was sufficiently particularized and not overbroad.\u201d On the totality of the circumstances: \u201cThe information in the December 2020 Warrant’s affidavit provides a substantial basis for the magistrate judge to conclude that probable cause existed with respect to photographic, video, and financial-record evidence of the Subject Offenses, irrespective of timeframe. For example, the affiant states that based on his \u2018training and experience\u2019 he knows that \u2018individuals who engage in narcotics trafficking store records relating to their illegal activity\u2019 including \u2018stored photographs and other data regarding narcotics and\/or illegal firearm possession.\u2019 (See Mot., Ex. G at 6.) Under a \u2018practical, common-sense\u2019 probable cause determination, this Court is persuaded that the Subject Device could contain photographic, video, or financial-record evidence relating to the Subject Offenses that fall outside of the timeframe imposed on other categories of information.\u201d Finally, the actual probable cause question doesn\u2019t even have to be decided because the good faith exception applies. United States v. Rosario, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230459 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cSuppression of digital photographs, videos and bank records that fell outside the April 1, 2019 through October 25, 2019 timeframe seized from the Subject Device is not warranted, as the December 2020 Warrant was sufficiently particularized and not overbroad.\u201d On … Continue reading