Category Archives: Particularity

C.D.Cal.: SW for all software in gambling case was overbroad and no GFE

Defendant is accused of an illegal gambling operation in his home. The search warrant for software on the computer device is fatally overbroad. The warrant swept up everything, was overbroad, and the good faith exception did not apply. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: SW for all software in gambling case was overbroad and no GFE

CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

CA3: Smell of MJ but none found can still be PC

The smell of marijuana is probable cause even if none is found in the subsequent search. The absence of marijuana only mitigates the probable cause, not eliminate it. United States v. Loveings, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (3d Cir. June … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Smell of MJ but none found can still be PC

GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

The warrant was all inclusive of drug information including use of the proceeds, and it didn’t violate particularity. Ball v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Apr. 30, 2026):*

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

“To the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

This Facebook warrant for information about gang activity was based on probable cause and was particular enough, considering the context of what the government was looking for. In any event, it wasn’t so bad that the good faith exception didn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

CA3: Cell phone warrant for CSAM could be broad because of possible hiding and misidentifying files

This CSAM cell phone warrant was broad, but that’s a recognition that files could have false names to hide them. It was not unreasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11323 (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2026):

Posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on CA3: Cell phone warrant for CSAM could be broad because of possible hiding and misidentifying files

CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

“The warrant authorized a search of 10 McGinnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. The correct address, Mr. Davis said, was 10 Meginnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. And beyond the address, the warrant contained no description of the house.” The suppression hearing … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Protective sweep, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

MN: Geofence warrant was not particular

The Minnesota Constitution doesn’t categorically prohibit geofence warrants, but here the warrant was not particular as to all those swept up. Reversed and remanded to the court of appeals (rev’g State v. Contreras-Sanchez, 5 N.W.3d 151 (Minn. App. 2024)). State … Continue reading

Posted in geofence, Particularity | Comments Off on MN: Geofence warrant was not particular

CA10: Apple SW was insufficiently particular, but GFE still applies

“We agree with Kimberley that the Apple search warrant was insufficiently particularized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the Government has shown the good faith exception to the warrant requirement … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Nighttime search, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: Apple SW was insufficiently particular, but GFE still applies

CO: Incorporated and attached affidavit to SW narrowed its scope

The warrant included the application for it as defining its scope and it was attached. That limited the time and subject matter of the search. People v. Stauch, 2026 COA 22 (Apr. 2, 2026). The inventory of defendant’s car was … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Independent source, Inventory, Particularity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CO: Incorporated and attached affidavit to SW narrowed its scope

IA: Backpack carried into premises by visitor just before SW executed was within scope of warrant

Police were watching a Des Moines house waiting to execute a search warrant. Defendant showed up and entered the house with a backpack. Then they entered on the warrant. The backpack was within the particular description in the warrant. When … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on IA: Backpack carried into premises by visitor just before SW executed was within scope of warrant

E.D.Pa.: “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular

In a child pornography case, “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular enough. United States v. Margerum, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65406 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2026):

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular

D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but qualified immunity applies because the law isn’t clearly established. Dotson v. Acord, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57749 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2026). Plaintiff runs a wildlife rehab place, and … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Qualified immunity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

CA7: Officer did all he could to determine whether place to be searched was single unit or multi-unit

In an anticipatory warrant case, the officer did all he could to determine whether the premises was a single unit or not, and everything suggested it was single. “[T]he agents’ investigation of the facts contained in the warrant, and their … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA7: Officer did all he could to determine whether place to be searched was single unit or multi-unit

CO: Vague description in arrest warrant didn’t justify def’s stop

The description of an arrestee as a 30ish male with the last name starting in “Mc” didn’t justify defendant’s detention in a park. People v. McGee, 2026 CO 14 (Mar. 9, 2026):

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity | Comments Off on CO: Vague description in arrest warrant didn’t justify def’s stop

CA10: Def’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver

Defendant’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver. United States v. Cooks, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6547 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026). Defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal alleging conclusory violations of the Fourth and Fifth … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on CA10: Def’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver

CA11: Off-site copying of def’s cell phone after the SW’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B).

Off-site copying of defendant’s cell phone after the warrant’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B). United States v. Hernandez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4990 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2026). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on CA11: Off-site copying of def’s cell phone after the SW’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B).

D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices

The warrant for CSAM was specific enough and didn’t permitt and unlimited search of the devices. “Although the language of the warrant issued here could have been drafted more artfully, the court finds the limiting language sufficiently connects the items … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices

S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

Email warrant was particular enough with “practical accuracy”: “But the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is ‘on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.’ United States … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough