Category Archives: Warrant requirement

S.D.Ala.: Handwritten corrections on SW required a hearing as to how and why

The government contended in its brief on the motion to suppress that the search warrant was supported by controlled buys and didn’t otherwise support the CI. That requires a hearing. Corrections whiting out the address and changing it is enough … Continue reading

Posted in Standing, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: Handwritten corrections on SW required a hearing as to how and why

CA11: The exact description in the SW was incorrect, but the attachment cured it

“Importantly, the warrant itself refers only to ‘[t]he premises located at: 1701 Bainbridge Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32507.’ Although Attachment A incorrectly attributes that address to the trailer, the photo and description support the conclusion that the trailer and building are … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA11: The exact description in the SW was incorrect, but the attachment cured it

MN: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil eviction

The landlord was changing all the locks in an apartment complex for uniformity and warned the tenants. They showed up at defendant’s apartment and knocked, but defendant didn’t answer. They tried unlocking the door but the master key didn’t work. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on MN: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil eviction

D.Minn.: A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search

A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search. “Defendant’s argument that the search warrant authorized the seizure—but not the search—of his computer, phone, and computer storage media strains the bounds of logic and … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Protective sweep, Scope of search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on D.Minn.: A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search

techdirt: Disrupting The Fourth Amendment: Half Of Law Enforcement E-Warrants Approved In 10 Minutes Or Less

techdirt: Disrupting The Fourth Amendment: Half Of Law Enforcement E-Warrants Approved In 10 Minutes Or Less by Tim Cushing:

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off on techdirt: Disrupting The Fourth Amendment: Half Of Law Enforcement E-Warrants Approved In 10 Minutes Or Less

ID: Failure to repeat “computer” in SW for things to be seized wasn’t a violation of 4A; CA7 typo in LPN can be overlooked

The preamble of the search warrant listed a bunch of digital things to search for and seize but the specific search clause didn’t include “computer.” The search warrant as a whole included computers, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Computer searches, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on ID: Failure to repeat “computer” in SW for things to be seized wasn’t a violation of 4A; CA7 typo in LPN can be overlooked

TN: Multiple mistakes on time of issuance of SW supported suppression under state law

Multiple typos on the time of issuance of the blood warrant (2044, 2244, 2244 pm, 2244 am) resulted in the trial court’s suppressing the warrant. The facts don’t preponderate against the findings of the trial court because the witnesses were … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off on TN: Multiple mistakes on time of issuance of SW supported suppression under state law

DE: Typo of month of controlled buy in affidavit for SW could be ignored; totality shows what it really is

The affidavit says that the controlled buy was in the “second half of February 2017” when the search warrant was issued February 1. It’s clear to the court from reading the affidavit as a whole that this is a typo … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on DE: Typo of month of controlled buy in affidavit for SW could be ignored; totality shows what it really is

E.D.Va.: Corrected typo on SW’s execution date was proper and didn’t void warrant

There was a typo on the warrant when created by the Magistrate. It said it had to be executed by “June 13” but it was issued after that and obviously should have said “July 13.” The error was caught by … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Corrected typo on SW’s execution date was proper and didn’t void warrant

TN: SW issuing magistrates have only district-wide jurisdiction and couldn’t issue SW here

By statute, magistrates issuing search warrants have only district-wide jurisdiction, and here the magistrate lacked authority to issue the search warrant at issue. The state did not show any exceptions. State v. Frazier, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 861 (Sept. … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on TN: SW issuing magistrates have only district-wide jurisdiction and couldn’t issue SW here

DE: Def doesn’t have to be named as a suspect for a SW to be valid because it’s a search for things which could be evidence

“It is Defendant’s burden to prove the warrant is unsupported by probable cause. Defendant has not met this burden. The search warrant was issued solely for the vehicle. Whether Defendant was a suspect at the time of the application for … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on DE: Def doesn’t have to be named as a suspect for a SW to be valid because it’s a search for things which could be evidence

CA8: (1) In drug conspiracy case, the govt overcame staleness because of ongoing crime; (2) Issuance of SW in D.Neb. by non-cross designated USMJ in N.D.Iowa was subject to GFE

First, the search warrant in this drug conspiracy case wasn’t stale, although a long time had elasped during and between the times recorded in the affidavit of things that happened. While the evidence wasn’t strong, the deference accorded the issuing … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception, Staleness, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA8: (1) In drug conspiracy case, the govt overcame staleness because of ongoing crime; (2) Issuance of SW in D.Neb. by non-cross designated USMJ in N.D.Iowa was subject to GFE