Category Archives: Overseizure

OH2: The fact a SW had a laundry list of 182 things to search for and seize isn’t fatal where def doesn’t show what was overseized

The search warrant here was for illegal fireworks and listed 182 items to be seized, including fireworks. “Johnson also contends the warrant is invalid because it authorized the seizure of a boilerplate list of 182 items, all or most of … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Overseizure, Particularity | Comments Off on OH2: The fact a SW had a laundry list of 182 things to search for and seize isn’t fatal where def doesn’t show what was overseized

TX1: SW to seize blood sample implicitly means it can be tested, too

A search warrant for a blood sample implicitly includes testing it. Davis v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5990 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) July 30, 2020). Probable cause existed for seizure of five years of defendant’s Gmail account. … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Staleness | Comments Off on TX1: SW to seize blood sample implicitly means it can be tested, too

CA2: Second Tasing of nonresisting detainee was unreasonable

On this record, the second Tasing of plaintiff could be found unreasonable for lack of resistance, which the jury did. Jones v. Treubig, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19883 (2d Cir. June 26, 2020). The search under defendant’s consent for “firearms/evidence” … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Inevitable discovery, Overseizure, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on CA2: Second Tasing of nonresisting detainee was unreasonable

M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required

There was probable cause for issuance of historical cell phone tracking information and connecting defendant to the phone. The affidavit, however, only sought information for one day, but the warrant covered seven days. The overseizure is suppressed because the exclusionary … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Overseizure | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required

CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

Plaintiff was arrested for child pornography when officers executed a search warrant at his house based on a video uploaded via the IP address and router in the house. There was probable cause for the arrest, but not for the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

CT: Dismissal not appropriate remedy here for violation of A-C privilege in execution of SW

Defendant did not show that all the documents seized were attorney-client privileged for purposes of litigation. Some were. However, dismissal is not the appropriate remedy, despite the fact privileged information made it into the media from the arrest warrant materials. … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Privileges, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CT: Dismissal not appropriate remedy here for violation of A-C privilege in execution of SW

D.Ariz.: Overseizure of emails by SW didn’t require suppression of all; GFE also applies

This search warrant was issued in a SSA fraud case alleging a decade of false claims. The search warrant was sufficiently particular and not overbroad. The fact the period of the alleged offense was through January 2014 did not prohibit … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Overseizure | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Overseizure of emails by SW didn’t require suppression of all; GFE also applies

D.Haw.: Def failed in her motion to reconsider overseizure by failure to specify exactly what was

Defendant’s motion to suppress was previously denied, but she was allowed to specify what documents were overseized. “[T]he court will consider a motion to suppress specific documents or other evidence based on proof that such items were seized and that … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Overseizure | Comments Off on D.Haw.: Def failed in her motion to reconsider overseizure by failure to specify exactly what was

CA1: Alleged overseizure of email under SW would only require partial suppression; def doesn’t identify that which was overseized

Defendant’s motion to suppress electronic data acquired by a Rule 41(e)(2)(B) search warrant on his email account was properly denied. Based on the absence of a time limit in the warrant, it was not unreasonable to interpret the warrant to … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Overseizure, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA1: Alleged overseizure of email under SW would only require partial suppression; def doesn’t identify that which was overseized

MT: Overseizure of contents of cell phone didn’t prejudice def where the overseized information was not offered at trial

Defendant argued that the search of his cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment because more was seized than the warrant allowed. Since none of the excess was offered by the state, he wasn’t prejudiced, and the over seizure didn’t void … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Overseizure | Comments Off on MT: Overseizure of contents of cell phone didn’t prejudice def where the overseized information was not offered at trial

S.D.N.Y.: Seizure of 21 privileged documents out of 1.3M wasn’t a 4A or privilege violation

The government seized 1.3M documents, and 21 apparently were privileged. This doesn’t show that the government was willful disregarding the warrant or the need to protect privileged materials. His iPhone and laptop were properly seized by plain view then subjected … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Privileges | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Seizure of 21 privileged documents out of 1.3M wasn’t a 4A or privilege violation

CA4: Def’s unlocking cell phone without sharing passcode was not communicative act

The officer who had defendant’s cell phone asked her to unlock it. She entered the passcode without sharing it or him seeing her do it. It wasn’t a communicative act. It’s like providing a key. Her motion to suppress the … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Overseizure, Privileges | Comments Off on CA4: Def’s unlocking cell phone without sharing passcode was not communicative act

S.D.W.Va.: Computer SW for drugs led to healthcare fraud evidence; second SW needed; exclusionary rule should apply to deter

The government had a search warrant of ESI for drugs. When the search warrant was executed, they found evidence of healthcare billing fraud. A second search warrant was required, citing the government’s own search manual [noted and linked on the … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Computer SW for drugs led to healthcare fraud evidence; second SW needed; exclusionary rule should apply to deter

IA: SW for premises includes whole house, and bedroom of a visitor with a separate REP is still subject to search

Defendant was staying at the house of another when a search warrant for the premises was executed. He argued that his particular bedroom wasn’t subject to search under the warrant because he had a separate expectation of privacy in the … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on IA: SW for premises includes whole house, and bedroom of a visitor with a separate REP is still subject to search

CA6: Medical clinic wasn’t “permeated with fraud” justifying an “all records” seizure, but SW was particular enough for a substantial seizure

The district court held that the defendant’s medical clinic was “permeated with fraud” justifying an “all records” seizure. The court of appeals disagrees. There was a fair amount of potential fraud, but it wasn’t obvious. Still, the warrant had particularity … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Particularity | Comments Off on CA6: Medical clinic wasn’t “permeated with fraud” justifying an “all records” seizure, but SW was particular enough for a substantial seizure

N.D.Tex.: Two defs given standing to challenge seizure of their emails on co-def business’s account

Defendants were charged in a dietary supplement mislabeling conspiracy. On the claim of overseizure, the warrant specified “angeline” but the court concludes anything related to it was seizable as well without violating particularity. Two defendants were given standing to challenge … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure, Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Two defs given standing to challenge seizure of their emails on co-def business’s account