A cell phone dump after a search warrant wasn\u2019t necessarily overbroad, and didn\u2019t show it. \u201cMore particularity was impractical, and was not required.\u201d United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125994 (D. Md. July 15, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers who used \u201ctrickery\u201d to friend defendant and get access to his \u201cprivate\u201d Facebook page didn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment. If he has a First Amendment claim for political retaliation, that\u2019s for a civil case. United States v. Randall, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125971 (W.D. Wis. May 23, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cConsequently, it does not appear that the affiant made any statements in reckless disregard for the truth, let alone false statements in the GPS Tracking Warrant and Dodge Search Warrant affidavits.\u201d United States v. McLeod, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125867 (D.N.J. July 15, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit shows probable cause based on the regular corroborated informant\u2019s story. Even if not, it was enough for the good faith exception. United States v. Garcia, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125892 (S.D. Ga. June 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A cell phone dump after a search warrant wasn\u2019t necessarily overbroad, and didn\u2019t show it. \u201cMore particularity was impractical, and was not required.\u201d United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125994 (D. Md. July 15, 2022). Officers who used … Continue reading