Defendant filed a motion for the court to rescind the search warrant for his cell phone under Rule 41(g) because it was allegedly defective. The remedy is a motion to suppress, not to rescind. United States v. Cardenas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205563 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven though the affidavit arguably was conclusory with regard to the connection between Shelton’s cellphone and criminal activity, it was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would have relied upon it.\u201d United States v. Shelton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30359 (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the time of the raid, defendant\u2019s cell phone was in plain view and there was justification for it to be seized for follow up search. United States v. White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204243 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CI\u2019s information wasn\u2019t enough alone, but it was corroborated enough by trash pulls and other police work. United States v. Woznichak, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204338 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant filed a motion for the court to rescind the search warrant for his cell phone under Rule 41(g) because it was allegedly defective. The remedy is a motion to suppress, not to rescind. United States v. Cardenas, 2023 U.S. … Continue reading