Category Archives: Particularity

CO: Cell phone SW is particular if it gives just the phone number and expected owner’s name

A cell phone search warrant is sufficiently particular by identifying merely the phone number and the expected owner of the phone. People v. Pettigrew, 2020 COA 46, 2020 Colo. App. LEXIS 656 (Mar. 26, 2020). Defense counsel didn’t fail to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CO: Cell phone SW is particular if it gives just the phone number and expected owner’s name

W.D.Va.: Whistleblower CI has “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.”

In a health care fraud case, a whistleblower confidential informant for a search warrant was entitled to more credit than a regular CI because of a likely “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.” The search warrant for documents here was … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: Whistleblower CI has “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.”

N.D.Ohio: A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases

A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases. United States v. Grant, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50390 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2020):

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases

W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

Just because the government hasn’t yet accessed defendant’s iPhone because it can’t crack the code to unlock it doesn’t mean that defendant can get it back under Rule 41(g). It’s still potential evidence. United States v. Morgan, 2020 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Just because the govt can’t unlock def’s iPhone doesn’t mean he can get return of it under Rule 41(g)

E.D.Tex.: Address of a building is usually sufficient for particularity

The address of a building is generally sufficient particularity for a search warrant. Even so, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Wilson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37210 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on E.D.Tex.: Address of a building is usually sufficient for particularity

CA5: Def’s office in building behind his house was properly searched under IRS SW for house/office for records where officers relied on address publicly listed

IRS agents’ search of the home office behind defendant’s home was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment where the search warrant described defendant’s primary residence but the office carried a different address. It was reasonable to believe the … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA5: Def’s office in building behind his house was properly searched under IRS SW for house/office for records where officers relied on address publicly listed

N.D.Iowa: Search of defendant’s entire Facebook account was overbroad for lack of temporal limitations

Search of defendant’s entire Facebook account was overbroad for lack of temporal limitations. United States v. Burkhow, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20319 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 6, 2020):

Posted in Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Search of defendant’s entire Facebook account was overbroad for lack of temporal limitations

CA4: 4A doesn’t require a particular statement of the crime under investigation if it otherwise adequately describes the place to be search or the person or thing to be seized

“More fundamentally, we think that the premise of Blakeney’s argument — that a search warrant always must specify the crime for which the executing officers may seek evidence – is mistaken. The Fourth Amendment ‘specifies only two matters that must … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA4: 4A doesn’t require a particular statement of the crime under investigation if it otherwise adequately describes the place to be search or the person or thing to be seized

E.D.Ky.: Def’s felony drug arrest after a patdown on RS of fleeing justified search of his car

Defendant was being watched by police, and he was being followed and ran a stop sign. In the stop, the officer told defendant to roll down his window and turn off the car. He rolled the window part way down … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Def’s felony drug arrest after a patdown on RS of fleeing justified search of his car

S.D.N.Y.: In a 3 page affidavit for SW, showing the crimes under investigation was particular enough

The affidavits for search warrant are only three pages long, and they reference the crimes under investigation on page one or the first paragraph. That is enough here to show particularity. “The Court concludes that the fact that these brief … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: In a 3 page affidavit for SW, showing the crimes under investigation was particular enough

OH8: Seat belt ordinance permissible under police power

A seat belt ordinance (as well as state law on the subject) is a proper exercise of police power for which a traffic stop may occur when an officer sees an occupant without a seat belt on. City of South … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on OH8: Seat belt ordinance permissible under police power

LA4: Lack of apt no. in SW wasn’t inspecific where officers were directed to his door

The search warrant for defendant’s apartment didn’t have the apartment number, but the warrant was specific and directed the officers to his door. That was constitutionally adequate. State v. Gilmartin, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 118 (La. App. 4 Cir. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Pretext, Probable cause | Comments Off on LA4: Lack of apt no. in SW wasn’t inspecific where officers were directed to his door