Category Archives: Particularity

W.D.N.C.: The fact def’s car crossed the county line between when the police car lights came on and when he was stopped is not a basis to suppress

The fact a stop was started in one county and actually occurred as defendant crossed the county line is not a basis for suppressing the stop. Defendant’s consent to search his house is suppressed, however, because of language difficulties: “Thus, … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: The fact def’s car crossed the county line between when the police car lights came on and when he was stopped is not a basis to suppress

S.D.N.Y.: Driver’s cell phone search in 2017 NYC truck attack on pedestrians attributed to ISIS was with PC and was particular

The defendant in the 2017 New York City truck attack attributed to ISIS moved to suppress his cell phone search, primarily on the ground that ubiquity of cell phones alone isn’t enough. There was more. The court credits the FBI … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, GPS / Tracking Data, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Driver’s cell phone search in 2017 NYC truck attack on pedestrians attributed to ISIS was with PC and was particular

N.D.Okla.: A felon threatening somebody with a gun is nexus to believe the gun at his home

Defendant being a felon and allegedly threatening his alleged victim with a gun was nexus that he’d likely have it at home. United States v. Edwards, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112265 (N.D. Okla. July 8, 2019). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: A felon threatening somebody with a gun is nexus to believe the gun at his home

CA11: Multiple addresses for large rural property didn’t make SW for one address lack particularity

The search warrant for rural property described a 26 acre “lot” which the officers reasonably believed was all covered by one address. It turned out that it wasn’t, and there was another address for it all, too. Still, the warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on CA11: Multiple addresses for large rural property didn’t make SW for one address lack particularity

S.D.Ohio: SW for “firearms” is particular when target is a felon

When the target of a search is a convicted felon, a search warrant for stolen firearms doesn’t need to be specific as to their description because mere possession is a crime. United States v. Prigmore, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96217 … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: SW for “firearms” is particular when target is a felon

ND: Arrangement to pick up his package showed control and standing

Defendant’s arrangement with another person to pick up his package showed his control over the package, and that gave him standing. State v. Gardner, 2019 ND 122, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 130 (May 16, 2019) (quoting Treatise § 3.13). “We conclude … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on ND: Arrangement to pick up his package showed control and standing

CA6: Date of receipt of CP isn’t a limit on the scope of a SW

In a child pornography investigation, the date of the alleged obtaining the child porn doesn’t limit the scope of the search warrant. Moreover, the fact it was known to be on one device does mean that only that device can … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity, Private search | Comments Off on CA6: Date of receipt of CP isn’t a limit on the scope of a SW

NE: Expansive SW for cell phone in a shooting case with multiple participants was reasonable

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was expansive, but it was evidence in a shooting case where defendant and others were involved. Moreover, the good faith exception applied. State v. Goynes, 303 Neb. 129 (May 17, 2019):

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on NE: Expansive SW for cell phone in a shooting case with multiple participants was reasonable

N.D.Cal.: Govt can’t show PC for search of cell phone, and GFE doesn’t apply either

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phones had inserted “no charge at this time” for the crime under investigation. The phone was seized without a warrant from a traffic stop, then searched under the warrant, but you can’t tell what … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Govt can’t show PC for search of cell phone, and GFE doesn’t apply either

D.Minn.: Gov’t proved exigency for warrantless cell phone ping

Defendant’s cell phone was pinged based on exigency. Defendant claims that it was false. “However, the salient facts on which Sgt. O’Rourke based his request are clearly borne out by the evidence.” United States v. Andrews, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Particularity, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Gov’t proved exigency for warrantless cell phone ping

D.N.M.: SW for CP in house didn’t need to identify the person who was the target of the search

Officers had probable cause that child pornography came from a particular IP address that was linked to a street address. The search warrant was properly issued for the entire premises, and it did not need to list the target of … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity | Comments Off on D.N.M.: SW for CP in house didn’t need to identify the person who was the target of the search

M.D.Pa.: Typo in SW address overlooked under GFE

Typographical error in the search warrant (648 South 21st Street rather than 748 South 21st Street) would be overlooked under the good faith exception where the correct property was searched. United States v. Carey, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74140 (M.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Typo in SW address overlooked under GFE