
newsAug 8, 202626:04pending
Mega Edition: The State Objects To Kohberger's Motion To Suppress The First Apple Warrant (8/8/26)
About this episode
In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
Get every episode summarized
Each time Beyond The Horizon publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Beyond The Horizon

Murder In Moscow: Bryan Kohberger And The Subpoena He Sent To Bethany Funke
Beyond The Horizon
Sep 7, 202612:50completed

Ghislaine Maxwell And The Sealed Indictment (Part 2) (9/6/26)
Beyond The Horizon
Sep 7, 202611:53completed

Ghislaine Maxwell And The Sealed Indictment (Part 1) (9/6/26)
Beyond The Horizon
Sep 6, 202611:23completed

Leon Black And The Motion To ID His Accuser (Part 2) (9/6/26)
Beyond The Horizon
Sep 6, 202610:58completed