The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether police lawfully seized and later searched Michael Carlton’s cellphone and whether a lengthy delay in extracting photographs from the device requires suppression. Defense attorney Richard Hartquist argued the initial seizure was warrantless and that detectives exceeded the scope of their authority by ultimately reviewing some 31,000 images on the phone after obtaining a second warrant for contents. "They went through the entire cell phone and they found 31,000 pictures," Hartquist said, characterizing the later production of photographs as beyond what police initially sought and arguing the nine‑month delay between seizure and extraction was prejudicial. Hartquist emphasized that the detectives initially said they sought a photograph of a white Nike Air Max T‑shirt that had been posted on Facebook about two hours before the shooting; he argued officers were allowed to search for records or photos that tended to show possession of firearms but did not have automatic authority to seize and hold the entire device without a warrant authorizing the seizure. The defense also pointed to stipulations in the record that breaking the phone’s passcode with the forensic extractor can take from weeks to nearly two years in some instances, and said the investigators failed to obtain renewed or supplemental warrants during the delay. Prosecuting counsel Erin Knight responded that the officers obtained a lawful follow‑on warrant for the phone’s contents and that, once the device was opened, images showing the defendant with the shooter were plainly incriminating and therefore properly seized in plain view. "It's an iPhone. It's hard to crack," Knight told the court, explaining the duration of the extraction process and arguing the delay was a matter of technical duration rather than an investigative choice. Knight relied on Commonwealth v. McDermott and on lower‑court analysis finding that a warrant authorizing searches for records and photographs can encompass devices where such records are likely stored, and she told the justices the prosecution provided the extracted photos to defense counsel months before trial. The justices pressed both sides on several points: whether the initial seizure was truly inadvertent or pretextual; whether the original arrest and search warrants sufficiently described the items officers sought; whether the plain‑view doctrine applied; and whether a subsequent valid warrant cures any earlier illegality or instead yields ‘‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’’ The transcript records counsel disagreeing about which cases control and whether the authorities and affidavits before the motion judge cured any constitutional defects. Hartquist framed his suppression argument as a reversible‑error standard on appeal and limited his challenge chiefly to the nine‑month delay between seizure and extraction. Knight said the motion judge found the seizure proper — citing plain view and the officers’ belief that a photograph would be on the phone — and maintained that a valid subsequent warrant and the device’s forensic challenges distinguish this sequence from cases requiring exclusion. No ruling is recorded in the argument transcript. The court took the questions under advisement and did not announce a decision during the session.