This is a second motion to suppress a cell phone search, the first having been denied. A copy of the phone remains with the government, the phone having been returned. The first warrant to review the contents was for human trafficking, the second for sex trafficking. United States v. Mahone, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235173 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s frisk for a weapon produced marijuana. The frisk didn\u2019t involve squeezing pocket and was valid. United States v. Grant, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 31407 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warrantless cell phone search at Customs was reasonable. United States v. Jelleyman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235144 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This cell phone warrant was based on probable cause shown to a state court judge. United States v. Bom, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235252 (D. Alaska Oct. 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is a second motion to suppress a cell phone search, the first having been denied. A copy of the phone remains with the government, the phone having been returned. The first warrant to review the contents was for human … Continue reading