DE: Lack of binding authority for 5A cell phone thumbprint claim means it’s denied

Trial counsel didn’t challenge the use of defendant’s thumbprint to access his cell phone, acknowledging case law against it being testimonial. “It does not appear that either this Court or the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue. Nor has Riley cited any authority for the proposition that obtaining a suspect’s fingerprint violates the Fifth Amendment. In the absence of binding authority supporting his claim, Riley has not established deficient performance or prejudice as to this claim.” The search was otherwise challenged below. Riley v. State, 2026 Del. LEXIS 120 (Mar. 19, 2026).

2255 petitioner’s claim only that the CI was fabricated isn’t enough for a Franks challenge. Whitlow v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59018 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 20, 2026).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address information. United States v. Smajlovic, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59147 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.