Defendant\u2019s cell phone particularity objection to the warrant fails because it showed (1) crime involved, (2) ID’ed them as found on him at time with a gun and drugs, and (3) showed nexus. Also, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Morgan-Graham, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231811 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nHere, the warrants to search Defendant’s cell phones satisfy the three particularity components. First, Special Agent Wilner, who completed the Affidavit in support of the warrants, specified the offenses under investigation \u2014 that is, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 922(g)(1) and 924(c) and 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 841(a)(1). \u2026 Second, the Affidavit described the place to be searched by specifically identifying the three cell phones to be examined. \u2026 Notably, the Affidavit stated that Defendant was in possession of three cell phones when he was searched incident to arrest, at which time a Glock pistol equipped with a loaded magazine and a Glock conversion device, along with suspected narcotics, also were recovered from him. \u2026 Finally, in light of that information, the Affidavit identified the items to be seized by their relation to the alleged crimes. \u2026 Because the warrants do not lack particularity, they are not overbroad, and therefore suppression is unwarranted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, even if the Court were to find that the warrants were overbroad, suppression still would not be appropriate because it was reasonable for law enforcement to rely on the warrants to search Defendant’s three cell phones pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s cell phone particularity objection to the warrant fails because it showed (1) crime involved, (2) ID’ed them as found on him at time with a gun and drugs, and (3) showed nexus. Also, the good faith exception would apply. … Continue reading