Category Archives: Particularity

MO: SW for first structure on left was particular where the actual first was a hidden building and second was a shed

Defendant claimed that the search warrant wasn’t particular enough because it described defendant’s house as the first structure on the left on private road. Defendant shows that there were two others, but the first wasn’t visible from the road and … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off

OR: Search of computer’s browser history limited to the PC; here, 15 minutes, not two months; a computer is more of a “place to be searched” rather than a “thing to be seized”

Defendant was convicted of murder by child abuse. The only relation of a computer was his admission that he used a computer to search for symptoms when the child was sick 15 minutes before his 911 call. When the computer … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

N.D.Ga.: Use of an electronic “sniffer” to find a target computer in a college building was particular

Police used an electronic “sniffer” to attempt to find a MAC address of an operating computer in an Emory University building. “The affidavit described the plan to use a sniffer to ‘identify the wireless device associated with the suspect MAC … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off

S.D.Tex.: Seizure of cell phone incident to arrest was valid

“Here, the seizure of Fulton’s cell phone during his arrest fell squarely within the exception articulated in Chimel and Robinson as a seizure incident to arrest.” United States v. Fulton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83014 (S.D.Tex. June 23, 2016). The … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

OH8: SW for “Apt. #1” with white door was valid where there was only one with a white door, albeit No. 3, and officers were directed by color of door

The description of the apartment with the white door on the corner of the building, “Apt. #1,” proved incorrect because Apt. #3 was the only one with a white door. The officers executing the warrant were directed to the one … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

AZ: Serial SWs were justified by further developments in a serial murder investigation

Defendant was ultimately charged with 74 felonies, including nine murders. His house was subjected to three different search warrants, each specific to one or two crimes. It was reasonable for the police to get another warrant to go back after … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off

N.D.Cal.: It’s generally not good to include “all” before the documents to be seized in a SW; PC must be shown for what “all” modifies in SW, and here it was

It’s generally not good to include “all” before the documents to be seized in a search warrant, but it is valid if it can be shown to relate back to something for which there is a showing of probable cause. … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

DE: Cut-and-paste SW led to overbreadth problem in witness tampering SW where child porn found and suppressed

This is a child pornography case. The search warrant was a cut-and-paste from a child porn warrant but the warrant was for evidence of witness tampering on a computer. Child porn was found. The result was a warrant that failed … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off

OH3: Particularity challenge waived by not presenting it to suppression court

The officer’s smelling marijuana outside defendant’s residence was probable cause to corroborate the story that defendant had a grow going on. A particularity challenge was waived by not presenting it to the trial court at the suppression hearing. State v. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

CA3: “Computer hardware” and “any equipment” in a child porn SW includes cell phones

“The warrant, as written, defines ‘computer hardware’ broadly. Horton does not and cannot argue that his cell phone is not ‘computer hardware’ as it is defined in the warrant, which includes ‘any equipment’ (emphasis added) capable of transmitting computer data. … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off