Cellphone search warrants must clearly define what officers may review and why the data may contain evidence. This article delves into how the 1st Circuit applied Fourth Amendment scope and plain view principles in United States v. Deschambault. The ruling matters for investigators because it shows when officers may follow evidence of another crime found during a lawful phone search.
United States v. Deschambault, 2026 WL 1382783 (1st Cir 2026)
Cell phones continue to generate some of the most challenging Fourth Amendment questions in modern policing. They contain enormous amounts of personal information, and courts recognize that searching a phone can be far more intrusive than searching a wallet, briefcase, or even a residence. Nevertheless, officers who obtain a valid warrant may search a phone for evidence described in the warrant, even when that requires reviewing a broad range of digital content.
In United States v. Deschambault, officers from the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency arrested Rayevon Deschambault, a suspected drug dealer, after a controlled narcotics buy. Investigators obtained a warrant authorizing a search of an iPhone for evidence related to drug trafficking and evidence demonstrating ownership, possession, or use of the phone. During the forensic examination, officers discovered videos that ultimately led to child sexual exploitation charges.
“If evidence of another crime is discovered in plain view while officers are lawfully searching areas covered by the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require investigators to ignore what they have found.”
At trial, Deschambault tried to suppress the videos, but the trial court rejected his motion. Deschambault was convicted on two counts of sexual exploitation of a child under 18.
On appeal, Deschambault argued the warrant was too broad and officers exceeded its scope when they began investigating the videos. The 1st Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the warrant was tied to evidence of drug trafficking and specifically authorized officers to search records, communications, photographs, videos, location data, and other digital information that might reasonably contain evidence of the crime. The court noted modern drug investigations frequently uncover relevant evidence in photographs, videos, and other stored media — not merely in call logs or text messages.
Equally important, the court rejected the claim that officers unlawfully expanded their investigation when they discovered evidence of another crime. The videos had been discovered while officers were lawfully searching areas of the phone authorized by the warrant. Because the videos were also relevant to identifying the phone’s user and connecting individuals to a location associated with drug activity, officers did not abandon the authorized search or exceed the warrant’s scope. Once the evidence was discovered, investigators were entitled to pursue additional investigative leads and later obtained a separate federal warrant to continue investigating the newly discovered offenses.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The practical lesson is straightforward. A warrant to search a phone should clearly describe the crimes under investigation and the categories of data to be examined. Officers executing the warrant must remain focused on the authorized objectives of the search. However, if evidence of another crime is discovered in plain view while officers are lawfully searching areas covered by the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does not require investigators to ignore what they have found. As the court recognized, following newly discovered evidence of criminal activity is often part of an investigator’s duty, provided the original search remains within the lawful scope of the warrant.
- Blog Articles
