Category Archives: Particularity

WV: Witness recantation doesn’t per se eliminate PC; it is a factor to consider

A witness’s recantation is a factor for the prosecutor to consider in deciding whether to pursue charges. It does not mean that all probable cause is gone. Fall v. Ames, 2021 W. Va. LEXIS 640 (Nov. 19, 2021). The particularity … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on WV: Witness recantation doesn’t per se eliminate PC; it is a factor to consider

D.Kan.: Word processing error in affidavit didn’t make a Franks issue

The reference to another unknown person in the search warrant affidavit appears to be a word processing mistake and not a material false statement for Franks purposes. Denied. United States v. Moss, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221619 (D.Kan. Nov. 17, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Word processing error in affidavit didn’t make a Franks issue

ABA: Litigation: Overbroad Searches and Seizures: Google Customer Data Stored Outside of Gmail

ABA: Litigation: Overbroad Searches and Seizures: Google Customer Data Stored Outside of Gmail, 48 Litigation 49 (No. 1, Oct. 1, 2021) by Mark Mermelstein, Sharon Frase, and Alison Epperson (“Tech giant customer data can contain most of a user’s electronic … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on ABA: Litigation: Overbroad Searches and Seizures: Google Customer Data Stored Outside of Gmail

S.D.Tex.: Particularity and GFE are lacking; hearing set on motion to suppress

Neither the affidavit nor search warrant apparently sufficiently limit the search. The court has difficulty applying the good faith exception without a hearing on the motion to suppress. United States v. Mokbel, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191789 (S.D.Tex. Oct. 5, … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: Particularity and GFE are lacking; hearing set on motion to suppress

D.Alaska: SW affidavit accidentally in the jury room during deliberations wasn’t looked at so no error

The search warrant affidavit for the search warrant for defendant’s backpack accidentally went to the jury room in deliberations with the backpack. The court finds that this wasn’t error because 10 of the 12 jurors said they didn’t know that … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Alaska: SW affidavit accidentally in the jury room during deliberations wasn’t looked at so no error

NE: Time limited call and CSLI records were particular

The misstatements in the affidavit for the warrant here was negligence at worst, and that bars suppression. The affidavit for the warrant for defendant’s phone provided at least a “modicum” of information supporting probable cause. So, even assuming a lack … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on NE: Time limited call and CSLI records were particular

D.Minn.: Particularity in social media SWs is still evolving, and reliance on SW here was reasonable

Here, a Facebook warrant that allegedly lacked particularity was still close enough for the good faith exception. The law of particularity in social media warrants is still evolving, and it was reasonable for the officer to rely on the issuing … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Particularity in social media SWs is still evolving, and reliance on SW here was reasonable

TN: Merely citing to the particularity requirement not effective appellate argument without context

Defendant’s particularity argument fails for lack of cogent argument: “Defendant’s first question regarding the probable cause requirement has already been answered, and Defendant offers no evidence or argument in support of his apparent challenge to the particularity of the warrant. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Emergency / exigency, Particularity | Comments Off on TN: Merely citing to the particularity requirement not effective appellate argument without context

DE: “Any and all data” on a cell phone was a general warrant

A cell phone search warrant for any and all data without restriction was not particular and amounted to a general warrant. The use of the product of the search was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, No. … Continue reading

Posted in General warrant, Particularity | Comments Off on DE: “Any and all data” on a cell phone was a general warrant

CA4: Dog sniff before traffic ticket finished was reasonable

Dog sniff occurred here during the initial ordinary incidents of the traffic stop and writing a ticket so it didn’t extend the stop. United States v. Junkins, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24174 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). Defendant’s vehicle was … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA4: Dog sniff before traffic ticket finished was reasonable

CA8: SW for CP didn’t include “cell phone” in “electronic devices,” but GFE covers it

The search warrant here was for electronic devices that could hold child pornography, and it failed to specifically mention defendant’s cell phone. The good faith exception, however, overcame this omission of particularity. United States v. Pospisil, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on CA8: SW for CP didn’t include “cell phone” in “electronic devices,” but GFE covers it

E.D.N.Y.: Any RS was dispelled before stop

The officer may have had reasonable suspicion as he approached the defendant, but, as he got closer, suspicion was dispelled. No reasonable suspicion for the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Chavous, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131326 (E.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Any RS was dispelled before stop

OH5: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases

“While this appears to be a case of first impression in Ohio, other states have uniformly held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases.” It follows State ex rel. A.R. v. C.R., 1999 UT 43, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OH5: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases

CA8: Cell tower warrant to ID robbers was reasonable and with PC

Cell phone tower warrant in an effort to solve multiple robberies by identifying repeated phone use was reasonable when the question is a “substantial basis,” which there was. United States v. James, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20336 (8th Cir. July … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA8: Cell tower warrant to ID robbers was reasonable and with PC

D.Kan.: Geofence warrants have to satisfy the particularity requirement

A geofence warrant has to be narrowly tailored for particularity. Here, the government sought identifying information about what cell phones were in a government building. (The building, crime, and date of the occurrence are not disclosed.) In re Info. That … Continue reading

Posted in geofence, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Geofence warrants have to satisfy the particularity requirement

CA9: Body cam video of unreasonable warrantless entry to house should have been suppressed; but harmless

The warrantless entry into defendant’s house and body cam recording of him violated the Fourth Amendment. The other evidence, however, was overwhelming, so was harmless. United States v. Holiday, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15884 (9th Cir. May 27, 2021). Where … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Body cam video of unreasonable warrantless entry to house should have been suppressed; but harmless

N.D.Ind.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to provide the particularity, but it can if incorporated

The search warrant here is directed at a place and it’s not required to tie a person to it, unless it aids particularity. The affidavit for the warrant does not need to be particular but the warrant itself does. The … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Particularity, Staleness, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to provide the particularity, but it can if incorporated

CA6: What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant?

What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant? “After a lengthy investigation, the federal government uncovered substantial evidence that Dwayne Sheckles was a Louisville distributor for a large drug-trafficking ring. Sheckles pleaded guilty but reserved the right … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Nexus, Particularity, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA6: What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant?

CA7: State cell phone tracking order issued with PC and was particular

Police got information that cell phone -5822 was used to arrange drug sales. They called the number and set up a few controlled buys. Then they got a state court tracking order for the phone. There is no indication that … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA7: State cell phone tracking order issued with PC and was particular

D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021). The … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW