Category Archives: Particularity

D.Mass.: Email warrant for all material so it can be electronically and specifically searched was reasonable

The email search warrant produced 430,081 items, and the database provided then had to be searched. That complied with the terms of the search warrant and the Fourth Amendment because it still provided particularity. United States v. Aboshady, 2017 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

OH12: SW for text messages on cell phone was particular when limited to one person’s messages

Defendant was a police officer who was suspected of sexual battery of a student ride along. There were text messages, and a search warrant was obtained for his cell phone. The lack of a time frame for the text messages … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off

CA11: In search of computer for evidence of hacking, lack of time frame or search protocol doesn’t violate 4A

The search warrant for defendant’s computer was for evidence of “hacking” but produced child pornography. The lack of a time frame and search protocol for the search doesn’t make it violate the Fourth Amendment. “Considering the specific circumstances and complexities … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

W.D.Mo.: Parked RV hooked up to water and electricity with satellite dish on roof with grill and trashcan outside wasn’t subject to automobile exception

Defendant’s RV was being used as a residence when it was searched, and the automobile exception does not apply. Because it was a residence, the search warrant didn’t specify it within the residences to be searched in the search warrant, … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Particularity | Comments Off

N.D.Ga.: The SW doesn’t have to be in hand at the place of search as long as it is complied with

In a pill mill case against two doctors, the search warrant incorporated a list of what they were looking for by saying “See Exhibit B.” The use of the word “see” incorporated Exhibit B. Moreover, Exhibit B didn’t need to … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off

D.Kan.: Email and computer SWs were necessarily broad, but not unreasonably broad

“These were not warrants to search for ‘any and all information’ or ‘all computer information’ in defendant’s house. See Christie, 717 F.3d at 1165. Rather, the attachments effectively limited the scope of the searches to material relevant to specific federal … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, E-mail, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

NYTimes: Mishandle a Fraud Search, and All That Fine Evidence Could Be for Nothing

NYTimes: Mishandle a Fraud Search, and All That Fine Evidence Could Be for Nothing by Peter J. Henning:

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off

S.D.N.Y.: Govt couldn’t use “all records exception” because of lack of PC support

Securities fraud warrant was way overbroad and can’t be saved by the “all records exception” to search defendant’s business and apartment and seize even personal records. The search was so intrusive it violated the Fourth Amendment because there wasn’t sufficient … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

CA2: Computer SW was sufficiently particular; broad doesn’t mean necessarily unreasonable

In the Silk Road “drug kingpin” conviction, whether the third party doctrine succumbs to technology is going to have to come from SCOTUS since the doctrine came from it. The search warrant for defendant’s computer was sufficiently particular. Broad for … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Overseizure, Particularity, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off

N.D.Ohio: SW affidavit was so bare bones it never showed nexus or particularity; no GFE

The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show nexus between defendant’s house and drug dealing. There was some suspicion involving others and a stale anonymous tip never corroborated. Nothing implicated defendant except that one co-defendant was driving defendant’s van … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off