Four month delay in searching cell phones after lawfully seizing them was not unreasonable. \u201cDefendant relies primarily on United States v. Smith, a Second Circuit case. \u2026 There, in assessing whether a thirty-one day delay between police seizing a tablet and obtaining a search warrant for that tablet was reasonable, the Second Circuit considered four factors: “(1) the length of the delay, (2) the importance of the seized property to the defendant, (3) whether the defendant had a reduced property interest in the seized items, and (4) the strength of the state’s justification for the delay.” United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir. 2020). As it has before, see United States v. Berroa, \u2026, the Court finds the general analytical framework employed by the Second Circuit instructive. Accordingly, it will generally consider the Smith factors in assessing whether the four-month delay at issue here was reasonable.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191625 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff stated a claim where he plausibly alleged the officer pulled a gun on him and threatened to shoot him for asking for the officer\u2019s name and badge number. Watson v. Boyd, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26478 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of the individual defendants has standing to challenge corporate search warrants. United States v. Bartlett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190926 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One search warrant led to another. The fact the first one didn\u2019t produce a prosecutable case doesn\u2019t mean the second lacked probable cause. State v. Combs, 2024 W. Va. LEXIS 429 (Oct. 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Four month delay in searching cell phones after lawfully seizing them was not unreasonable. \u201cDefendant relies primarily on United States v. Smith, a Second Circuit case. \u2026 There, in assessing whether a thirty-one day delay between police seizing a tablet … Continue reading