Matter of Schadracia L. v. Administration for Children's Servs.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a warrant is generally required before [a search of a cell phone], even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest.”
• holding that the officers reasonably believed that the scope of a warrant, which was approved by a prosecutor and issued by a neutral magistrate, was supported by probable cause
• holding that a warrant was not “so obviously defective that no reasonable officer could have believed it was valid” where revealing any defect would require “close parsing” of the warrant application
• holding that officers acted reasonably where they “sought and obtained approval of the warrant application from a superior and a deputy district attorney” before it was approved by a neutral magistrate
• concluding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity when they had, inter alia, submitted a warrant application for review to a superior officer and a deputy district attorney, both of whom approved the application
• concluding that the officer’s consultation with superiors and a deputy district attorney with regard to a warrant application provided “further support for the conclusion that an officer could have reasonably believed” that his actions were lawful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).