Category Archives: Warrant requirement

NE: SW’s cut and paste error on what to be searched could be overlooked here

A cut and paste error in a search warrant that referred to other property could be overlooked when the true particularity could be seen. State v. Said, 306 Neb. 314 (July 2, 2020):

Posted in Particularity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NE: SW’s cut and paste error on what to be searched could be overlooked here

MD & NY2: Court ordered GPS tracking satisfied warrant requirement

Court ordered GPS tracking of a vehicle for up to 30 days under state statute satisfied the warrant requirement for its showing of probable cause before a neutral and detached magistrate. Whittington v. State, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 621 (July … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on MD & NY2: Court ordered GPS tracking satisfied warrant requirement

CA7: Failure to record supplemental testimony for issuance of SW in state court not 4A violation

An Illinois state judge issued a search warrant on a CI’s allegations of being in defendant’s home. The affidavit was essentially bare bones, but the judge took testimony about the CI and his or her basis of knowledge and maybe … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA7: Failure to record supplemental testimony for issuance of SW in state court not 4A violation

NJ: Destruction by policy of audio of telephonic SW application required suppression even without bad faith

This case proceeded on a telephonic search warrant where the application was recorded as required by law. The recording, however, was destroyed in 90 days under the department’s records retention policy. While the destruction wasn’t in bad faith, the recording … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NJ: Destruction by policy of audio of telephonic SW application required suppression even without bad faith

NM: What was intended for SW and what it says are two different things

The search warrant request for plaintiff’s person and vehicle resulted only in a warrant for the vehicle. What the defendant officer intended doesn’t count in the face of the clear warrant. A forced rectal search and x-ray at a hospital … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NM: What was intended for SW and what it says are two different things

NE: Typographical error on date in SW application can be overlooked if apparent it’s wrong

A typographical error in the date of the application for search warrant could be overlooked where the actual date can be determined from the whole. State v. Benson, 305 Neb. 949 (May 29, 2020). Defendant moved to suppress his DNA … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NE: Typographical error on date in SW application can be overlooked if apparent it’s wrong

FL2: Without a link to crime, grabbing one’s waistband and pockets not RS

No weapon had been involved in a robbery the police were investigating, and they knew defendant wasn’t the robber. When they approached and he felt his waistband and pockets, they didn’t have reasonable suspicion. Townsend v. State, 2020 Fla. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on FL2: Without a link to crime, grabbing one’s waistband and pockets not RS

E.D.Mich.: Email SW signed on SignNow app valid

An email search warrant signed by the issuing judge on a tablet with the SignNow app was valid. United States v. Lantzy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50057 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2020). “We conclude that the circumstances here were such … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Email SW signed on SignNow app valid

M.D.N.C.: Two SWs were issued, and second did not supersede the first

Two search warrants were issued May 28 & 29, 2019. They were both issued with probable cause, they weren’t stale, and the second did not supersede the first. No case supports this latter argument. United States v. Atkins, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on M.D.N.C.: Two SWs were issued, and second did not supersede the first

MT: Mandamus to get SW materials from 1998 denied for complete failure to comply with mandamus statute

Mandamus to get search warrant materials from 1998 denied: “Insua’s instant petition is lacking because it does not conform to Montana statutes. He has not filed a verified petition or included an affidavit, pursuant to § 27-26-201, MCA. Insua has … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on MT: Mandamus to get SW materials from 1998 denied for complete failure to comply with mandamus statute

OH2: Putting wrong city of bank robbery in affidavit was mere clerical error that could be overlooked

There was probable cause on the totality of the information provided the issuing magistrate for issuance of a search warrant for bank robber. The error as to the city of the robbery was a mere clerical error that could be … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Probation / Parole search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on OH2: Putting wrong city of bank robbery in affidavit was mere clerical error that could be overlooked

CA11: Pro se litigant doesn’t sufficiently allege issuing magistrate wasn’t “neutral and detached”

Pro se prisoner’s complaint against the search warrant process in Georgia fails for a multitude of reasons and is legally frivolous. State law on search warrant does not conflict with federal law and he doesn’t sufficiently allege that the issuing … Continue reading

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA11: Pro se litigant doesn’t sufficiently allege issuing magistrate wasn’t “neutral and detached”

CA10: NM metropolitan courts can issue SWs; they’re not governed by Rule 41, just the 4A

The New Mexico metropolitan court had jurisdiction to issue search warrants even though it had no general jurisdiction over felony cases. A state issued search warrant doesn’t need to comply with Rule 41; it only need comply with the Fourth … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA10: NM metropolitan courts can issue SWs; they’re not governed by Rule 41, just the 4A

C.D.Ill.: SW for premises need not state the owner’s name

Defendant was observed doing four controlled buys, and he went back to his girlfriend’s house in her car each time. “Defendant contends that the affidavit lacked probable cause because it did not state who owned the Residence, whether Defendant lived … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: SW for premises need not state the owner’s name

S.D.N.Y.: Typo in SW for emails could be overlooked in “common sense,” nontechnical reading

There was a typo in the affidavit for search warrant for emails, and the government procured another. The typo wasn’t even material because a “common sense” reading of the whole affidavit shows it was typographical error that could be overcome. … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Typo in SW for emails could be overlooked in “common sense,” nontechnical reading

WA: Affidavit and SW didn’t need to specify statutes of crimes under investigation when it was apparent it was murder

The search warrant of defendant’s place for trace evidence of a dead body rather than the body itself was reasonable because the police had information that the body had been burned in a fire pit. In addition, the affidavit and … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Hot pursuit, Particularity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on WA: Affidavit and SW didn’t need to specify statutes of crimes under investigation when it was apparent it was murder