Category Archives: Particularity

N.D.Ohio: SW affidavit was so bare bones it never showed nexus or particularity; no GFE

The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show nexus between defendant’s house and drug dealing. There was some suspicion involving others and a stale anonymous tip never corroborated. Nothing implicated defendant except that one co-defendant was driving defendant’s van … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off

D.S.C.: Motorcycle owner’s GPS tracked to def’s backyard; no Franks violation in the SW affidavit because it was really backyard

The owner of a motorcycle had a GPS tracker on it, and he reported to the police that it was pinging at defendant’s address. Defendant’s claim that the affidavit for the search warrant for defendant’s address violated Franks because the … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off

W.D.N.Y.: Despite bad SW drafting, text messages are “records” in a cell phone

“[N]otwithstanding the warrant’s poor grammar and ‘unwieldy’ language,” the court finds that text messages are included within the definition of “records” in the defendant’s cell phone. United States v. Swinton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62172 (W.D. N.Y. April 24, 2017):

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off

W.D.Mo.: Email SW to Google was particular, and target has no 4A right to notice of the SW

“Courts have repeatedly upheld courts’ ability to issue warrants outside their respective district under the S[tored] C[communications] A[ct]. The computer system was in California with Google. The email warrant was for nearly everything for 13 months, and it wasn’t overbroad. … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off

E.D.Mich.: “electronic devices, narcotics and related paraphernalia, and biological evidence” was sufficiently particular

“Here, the warrants authorized officers to seize three categories of items: electronic devices, narcotics and related paraphernalia, and biological evidence. The affidavits established probable cause that Jackson’s electronic devices could contain evidence of sex trafficking—including photographs, documentary evidence, and advertisements—based … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

D.Minn.: SW for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include CP

A search warrant for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include child pornography despite the fact that adult pornography isn’t a crime. There was also probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Barthman, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity | Comments Off

D.N.J.: “including but not limited to” in SW was not overbroad; it had to be read in context

A search warrant with a particularity clause of “including but not limited to” was not overbroad and had to be read in context of the preceding language. United States v. Schaffer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26257 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2017).* … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Independent source, Particularity | Comments Off

DE: Just being involved in a shooting doesn’t give nexus to search a cell phone

The state here failed to show nexus between defendant’s cell phone and a shooting incident. In addition, the search warrant lacked all particularity — it sought to search three cell phones for data and calls without time limit or scope. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off

E.D.Pa.: Particularity requirement has to be more flexible in complex cases

In complex cases, the particularly requirement has to be flexible enough to accommodate the substantial amount of information that will be sought and obtained. These two warrants, from 2011 and 2014, were constitutionally particular. United States v. Devos Ltd., 2017 … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off

M.D.Ala.: Omission of city and county from address in SW wasn’t fatal where place to be searched was still apparent

The fact the affidavit had the address but no city and county doesn’t violate the particularity requirement. Yes, it would have been better to have done so, but the officers still could find the place they were looking for, so … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off