Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
High court hears arguments over whether 110‑day delay to search seized cellphone requires suppression
Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Solis over whether a roughly 110‑day delay between seizing a cellphone incident to arrest and obtaining a search warrant required suppressing its contents; the Commonwealth said the phone’s role as an alleged instrumentality lowers possessory interests, while the defense said delay and lack of diligence justify exclusion.
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court heard competing legal arguments over whether a long delay in seeking a search warrant after a cellphone was seized incident to arrest requires courts to suppress evidence.
Brooke Hartley, attorney for the Commonwealth, told the court the case turns on the familiar distinction between possessory and privacy interests: "I think it's easy to conflate privacy interests and possessory interests, and a seizure affects only possessory interests, whereas a search affects privacy interests." Hartley argued that when police seize an item they reasonably believe is an instrumentality of a crime — here, a phone a child victim later said was used to take images during an assault —…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
