,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
CA5: When govt executed warrant at a home for narcotics and related items, including "ledgers," it was okay to seize a cell phone found there: The cell phone was "the equivalent of a ledger." (What a terribly drafted warrant.) ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/1… 
But then the 5th Circuit says that authority to seize the cell phone didn't mean it could be searched. (But why not? Other circuits have said permitting the seizure of electronic evidence implies permission to search it -- no need for second warrant.)
Court then concludes that 9 day delay in getting second warrant to search was reasonable. But I don't think I follow: If the government had a warrant to seize the phone, why is there a time clock on searching it with a second warrant? The time clock is for warrantless seizures.
This is a frustrating case. It is making really big moves without apparent realization of the relevant background law. Haven't looked at the briefs, but I'm wondering if they weren't very helpful.
