Category Archives: Particularity

Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

A geofence warrant was sought in 2019 for Google which provided several subject phones in the vicinity of a murder. The court finds the warrant was not particular enough, but applies the good faith exception because geofence warrants were so … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, geofence, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

Accidental reverse numbering of Attachments A and B didn’t make the search warrant void. United States v. Deakins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60866 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2023).* Plaintiff’s claim that the Director of National Intelligence violates the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

MS: SW was for stolen property from a particular victim and clothing seen in video

The warrant here was particular enough. It didn’t just seek stolen property; it sought particular property stolen from the victim and clothing worn during the burglary caught on video. Williamson v. State, 2023 Miss. App. LEXIS 125 (Apr. 4, 2023). … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on MS: SW was for stolen property from a particular victim and clothing seen in video

N.D.Ala.: Wrong street number in a SW didn’t void it where house was well described and officers had been there before

The wrong street number on the search warrant did not make it invalid. Officers knew the house from surveillance, and it was described. The right house was searched. “So, the erroneous street number did not make the warrant invalid.” Threatt … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Voluntariness, Warrant papers | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Wrong street number in a SW didn’t void it where house was well described and officers had been there before

D.N.M.: Search warrants are directed at places, not persons; offender need not be mentioned

Search warrants are directed at places, not persons. “Because, at the time of the oral affidavit, there was a fair probability the crime of kidnapping occurred and a fair probability evidence of that crime would be found in Defendant’s home … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity, Private search, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Search warrants are directed at places, not persons; offender need not be mentioned

OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found

In Oregon, “For searches of electronic devices, a warrant is specific enough to satisfy the particularity requirement if it ‘describe[s], with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, what investigating officers believe will be found’ on the device, … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found

CA3: SWs based on inference alone risk failing on nexus; here, however, GFE applies

The affidavit could have been stronger because more information was available and not provided the USMJ. All things considered, it wasn’t so devoid of probable cause that the good faith exception applies. The court cautioned: “As Magistrate Judges may draw … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: SWs based on inference alone risk failing on nexus; here, however, GFE applies

M.D.Pa.: SW for cash derived from drug sales was particular enough

The search warrant for U.S. currency derived from illegal drug sales was sufficiently particular as to the warrant for defendant’s house. United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33429 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023). The CSLI warrant here was … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: SW for cash derived from drug sales was particular enough

D.Colo.: Date range isn’t always required by 4A for particularity of cell phone SW

In a cell phone search warrant, “Although Trujillo argues that the date range from May 16, 2022, to present lacked ‘legal justification,’ Trujillo provides no explanation or authority as to how this date range rendered the warrant unconstitutionally general. There … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Date range isn’t always required by 4A for particularity of cell phone SW

D.Ariz.: Holding on to DL too long during traffic stop required RS

The traffic stop was justified, as was running the DL. However, the officer held on to the license too long and extended the stop without ending it. The continuation of the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. United States v. Serna, 2023 … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Holding on to DL too long during traffic stop required RS

CA1: No REP in guns hidden in house def wasn’t welcome at when he returned after being kicked out

Defendant stayed in a house with a domestic partner and her son until he was kicked out. He returned to assault her and hide guns there. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. United States v. John, … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA1: No REP in guns hidden in house def wasn’t welcome at when he returned after being kicked out

E.D.N.Y.: “MS-13 paraphernalia, photographs, and/or graffiti” satisfied particularity

In a RICO prosecution of MS-13, the search warrant included “MS-13 paraphernalia, photographs, and/or graffiti” and this satisfied particularity. United States v. Saenz, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231895 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2022):

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: “MS-13 paraphernalia, photographs, and/or graffiti” satisfied particularity

PA: Attachment to a warrant can provide particularity

The attachment to a warrant can provide particularity. While one ground to suppress was mostly litigated, it was apparent the other ground wasn’t waived or abandoned. Commonwealth v. Young, 2022 PA Super 220 (Dec. 23, 2022).* “Here, the record demonstrates … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on PA: Attachment to a warrant can provide particularity

S.D.N.Y.: The SW was as particular as the information officers had would allow

“In this case, by contrast, there is no indication that law enforcement had a wealth of detailed information that was not reflected in the search warrant. The Premises Warrant was not required to provide more details regarding the specific electronic … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Particularity, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: The SW was as particular as the information officers had would allow

CA8: SW in CP case can include whole house, not just def’s room

In a child pornography case, the search warrant need not be limited to only defendant’s room. It can be the whole house. United States v. Schave, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34757 (8th Cir. Dec. 16, 2022). Officers got a warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA8: SW in CP case can include whole house, not just def’s room

OR: SW omitted apt. no. but affidavit had it; they both were present at the search and that was sufficient

The affidavit for this warrant mentioned only defendant’s apartment building. The affidavit mentioned the apartment number. “The warrant did not incorporate or otherwise reference the affidavit and did not identify defendant by name. Green testified that the omission was an … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on OR: SW omitted apt. no. but affidavit had it; they both were present at the search and that was sufficient

FL1: Bedroom and bathroom being separated by wall didn’t make house multi-family

Defendant’s bedroom and bathroom were separate in the dwelling, walled off, but there was no outward appearance that it was an independent living unit: One address, one mailbox, one kitchen, a single-family dwelling on the tax rolls. He went out … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on FL1: Bedroom and bathroom being separated by wall didn’t make house multi-family

IL: Smell of burnt mj alone not RS

The smell of burnt cannabis without seeing more is not reasonable suspicion in Illinois. People v. Redmond, 2022 IL App (3d) 210524, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 479 (Nov. 15, 2022). On an Anders brief, the inventory search of defendant’s car … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Inventory, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Smell of burnt mj alone not RS

D.R.I.: Church rectory was subject to a SW and it was treated as a single-family dwelling with separate bedrooms

A church rectory was the subject of a child pornography search warrant. Multiple people lived there, but there was no sign that it was a multi-family type dwelling: “A more detailed description of the building, however, is not provided. From … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Private search, Reasonableness, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Church rectory was subject to a SW and it was treated as a single-family dwelling with separate bedrooms

N.D.Tex.: Officers don’t have to say they have PC before an automobile exception search

The officers didn’t say they had probable cause at the beginning of the search of the vehicle, but on the totality they did. United States v. Wesley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200320 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2022).* The Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Nexus, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Officers don’t have to say they have PC before an automobile exception search