Pedro Jimenez v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “it was not unreasonable for [the state magistrate] to infer that cell phones were being used in connection with the alleged drug dealing”
• concluding that the good- faith exception applied because, among other things, the search warrant was limited in scope
• determining that if firearms are “tools of the drug trade,” then “there is little reason to believe that cell phones are not”
• distinguishing authority where a warrant, which broadly authorized the seizure of electronic devices without regard to ownership, was so overbroad that it rendered the good-faith exception inapplicable
• “If firearms are tools of the drug trade . . . there is little reason to believe that cell phones are not.” (citation modified)
• “The second warrant, which police got after they seized Eg- gerson’s phone and which was limited to its contents, is even less suspect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).