Category Archives: Warrant requirement

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

N.D.Ala.: Taint team not required for this document and ESI search, and that part of process vacated

The USMJ’s requirement of a taint team to review the materials seized in execution of the search warrant is unnecessary in this case and not required by the Fourth Amendment, and it is set aside. United States v. Sealed Search … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Taint team not required for this document and ESI search, and that part of process vacated

NH: SW jurisdictional argument has to be presented to trial court first

Defendant’s jurisdictional argument that AOL’s emails were in Virginia and not amenable to a New Hampshire search warrant wasn’t presented to the trial court, so it’s waived. State v. Bergeron, 2017 N.H. LEXIS 143 (June 30, 2017). [Note: Jurisdiction of … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NH: SW jurisdictional argument has to be presented to trial court first

OH3: Oral testimony for SW doesn’t have to be transcribed before SW served

Oral testimony in support of issuance of a search warrant did not have to be transcribed and made part of the record before the warrant was served. State v. Wilson, 2017-Ohio-5484, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 2544 (3d Dist. June 26, … Continue reading

Posted in Pole cameras, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on OH3: Oral testimony for SW doesn’t have to be transcribed before SW served

OR: There is no state constitutional requirement the state get a telephonic warrant to avoid exigency

The state showed adequate evidence that it would take 4-5 hours to obtain a search warrant in this case, and that was enough to show exigency here. The defense put on proof that the state could have obtained a telephonic … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on OR: There is no state constitutional requirement the state get a telephonic warrant to avoid exigency