Category Archives: Particularity

N.D.Ga.: No 4A requirement of a computer search protocol in the SW

This search warrant was for steroids and misbranded drugs and included computers and defendant’s home. The warrant was issued with probable cause and was as particular as possible. As to the computer search, there was no constitutional requirement for a … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No 4A requirement of a computer search protocol in the SW

MS: A passenger in car 20 min before stop had no standing

Defendant was in the car that was stopped for 20 minutes and admittedly had no possessory interest in the car. Therefore, he had no standing. Nowell v. State, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 210 (May 1, 2018). “Williams argues the search … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on MS: A passenger in car 20 min before stop had no standing

N.D.Iowa: SW for car was still sufficient despite the LPN being wrong

The search warrant for defendant’s vehicle properly described it and with California plates except the LPN was wrong. Even if the warrant was insufficiently particular, which the court does not admit, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Ross, … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: SW for car was still sufficient despite the LPN being wrong

WA: SW for firearms in house permitted forcing open gun safe

A search warrant for firearms necessarily includes the ability of the police to open a gun safe found in the place to be searched, even though the officer was aware there might be a gun safe and it wasn’t specifically … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on WA: SW for firearms in house permitted forcing open gun safe

DE: “The scope of the warrant so far outruns that probable cause finding—and is so lacking in particularity relative to that probable cause finding—that it qualifies as plain error.”

A rare outcome: “The scope of the warrant so far outruns that probable cause finding—and is so lacking in particularity relative to that probable cause finding—that it qualifies as plain error.” Buckham v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 166 (Apr. 18, … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on DE: “The scope of the warrant so far outruns that probable cause finding—and is so lacking in particularity relative to that probable cause finding—that it qualifies as plain error.”

OH2: Description of “things to be seized” couldn’t be more particular

The search warrant for child pornography was particular and not overbroad. No more particular description was reasonably expected. “Under the circumstances, the search warrant could not reasonably have described the items more precisely.” Defendant’s search residence was in Wisconsin, and … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity | Comments Off on OH2: Description of “things to be seized” couldn’t be more particular

D.Kan.: Description of thing to be seized as a firearm wasn’t fatal where weapon of mass destruction was being sought

A Facebook warrant wasn’t overbroad because it involved a conspiracy and it was thus more difficult to describe what exactly was sought. As to a dwelling warrant, an error in the description of the thing to be seized as a … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Description of thing to be seized as a firearm wasn’t fatal where weapon of mass destruction was being sought

CA2: SW for computers doesn’t require they be specifically identified

The Fourth Amendment does not require that a search warrant for computers specifically identify them [because that’s not possible]. A search warrant to seize computers permits their search under Rule 41. United States v. Beal, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9056 … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity | Comments Off on CA2: SW for computers doesn’t require they be specifically identified

S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

The affidavit for the search warrant as to this defendant adequately demonstrated probable cause. The fact the codefendant’s search warrant lacked probable cause isn’t binding on this search warrant. United States v. Damondo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57204 (S.D. Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

OH9: Running drug dog around car during computer check didn’t delay the stop

Running a drug dog around defendant’s car while the computer check is going on didn’t delay the stop. State v. Torres, 2018-Ohio-1173, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1274 (9th Dist. Mar. 30, 2018). The inclusion of a generalized along with a … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH9: Running drug dog around car during computer check didn’t delay the stop

MN: Typo adding wrong name into a DNA SW along with the correct name didn’t make it overbroad

“A [DNA] search warrant that mistakenly includes an incorrect person’s name does not lack sufficient particularity when the warrant provides a description of the correct person to be searched that includes the correct person’s name, date of birth, and location, … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on MN: Typo adding wrong name into a DNA SW along with the correct name didn’t make it overbroad

WA: SW for everything on a cell phone was overbroad

Defendant was investigated for sexual exploitation of a child, and the police obtained a search warrant for his phone seeking a “physical dump” of the phone, including everything on the phone: “Images, video, documents, text messages, contacts, audio recordings, call … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on WA: SW for everything on a cell phone was overbroad