Defendant\u2019s cell phone was unreasonably seized and the contents suppressed. Inevitable discovery isn\u2019t as broad as the government argues. United States v. Patchiav, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47106 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nHere, the Government argues that, as in Price, the Cellphone inevitably would have been discovered by law enforcement because it “was already ‘known to be central’ to the crime” allegedly committed by Defendant. Opp’n at 14 (quoting Price II, 845 F. App’x at 86). However, this argument implies that any evidence central to a crime will be admissible at trial once seized, even if seized unconstitutionally because law enforcement inevitably will discover any such evidence. This is not and cannot be the case. First, such a holding would eviscerate Forth Amendment protections and the exclusionary rule. It would incentivize law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches and arrests whenever they suspect that a critical piece of evidence is within reach. Second, it would be nonsensical to interpret Price as implying that the police inevitably will locate all evidence central to all crimes, thus making all such evidence admissible even when seized unconstitutionally. Thus, the Court declines to adopt the Government’s broad interpretation of Price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Price is distinguishable from the instant matter. In Price, the district court found exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the residence, where the phones were located. Price I, 2017 WL 4838307 at *4. Such is not the case here. See, Tr. 39:2-9. Unlike in Price, the officers here had no lawful right to be in the Residence where the Cellphone was located. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that law enforcement inevitably would have located and seized the Cellphone but for the unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone was unreasonably seized and the contents suppressed. Inevitable discovery isn\u2019t as broad as the government argues. United States v. Patchiav, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47106 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2026)*:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-inevitable-discovery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=63515"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63515\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63516,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63515\/revisions\/63516"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}