Defendant argues that the search of his car was void under Gant because he was handcuffed outside it. There was, however, probable cause for a vehicle search. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209424 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nexus shown to phone: \u201cAppellant argues the affidavits submitted in support of the search of his cell phone are insufficiently particularized and contain only broad language about the tendency of people to store information on their phone. We disagree. Although the affidavits contain some language that is arguably \u2018boilerplate,\u2019 they also contain specific facts tying the phone to the offenses being investigated. \u2026 [\u00b6] The affidavits state that appellant was arrested and charged with stalking based on allegations that he repeatedly sent unwanted and threatening messages to Balderas.\u201d Esparza v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8242 (Tex. App. \u2013 Dallas Oct. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No affidavit or standing means no standing: \u201cHere, defendant has failed to meet his burden to establish a privacy interest in the subject cell phone. Because defendant has made no showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the seized device or cellular data contained therein, he does not have standing to bring this motion.\u201d United States v. Crule, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210281 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant argues that the search of his car was void under Gant because he was handcuffed outside it. There was, however, probable cause for a vehicle search. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209424 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 3, 2025).* … Continue reading