ID: Potential for destruction of evidence on cell phone was justification for its seizure

Defendant was reported for video voyeurism of his stepdaughter in the bathroom, and police got his phone, telling him they were seizing it. Then they got a warrant. The potential for destruction of evidence was sufficient justification for a warrantless seizure. State v. Smith, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 3, 2026).

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for lack of materiality or that it was a reasonable mistake at worst. All things considered, he couldn’t win on the merits of a suppression motion. United States v. Robinson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21508 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2026).*

After a dog alert on his cell, plaintiff was subjected to a strip search, body cavity search, and body scan, and all this was reasonable. His strip search in front of other inmates wasn’t unreasonable. Sainiak v. Newberry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21614 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.