Category Archives: Particularity

CA2: SW for computers doesn’t require they be specifically identified

The Fourth Amendment does not require that a search warrant for computers specifically identify them [because that’s not possible]. A search warrant to seize computers permits their search under Rule 41. United States v. Beal, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9056 … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Particularity | Comments Off on CA2: SW for computers doesn’t require they be specifically identified

S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

The affidavit for the search warrant as to this defendant adequately demonstrated probable cause. The fact the codefendant’s search warrant lacked probable cause isn’t binding on this search warrant. United States v. Damondo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57204 (S.D. Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

OH9: Running drug dog around car during computer check didn’t delay the stop

Running a drug dog around defendant’s car while the computer check is going on didn’t delay the stop. State v. Torres, 2018-Ohio-1173, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1274 (9th Dist. Mar. 30, 2018). The inclusion of a generalized along with a … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH9: Running drug dog around car during computer check didn’t delay the stop

MN: Typo adding wrong name into a DNA SW along with the correct name didn’t make it overbroad

“A [DNA] search warrant that mistakenly includes an incorrect person’s name does not lack sufficient particularity when the warrant provides a description of the correct person to be searched that includes the correct person’s name, date of birth, and location, … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on MN: Typo adding wrong name into a DNA SW along with the correct name didn’t make it overbroad

WA: SW for everything on a cell phone was overbroad

Defendant was investigated for sexual exploitation of a child, and the police obtained a search warrant for his phone seeking a “physical dump” of the phone, including everything on the phone: “Images, video, documents, text messages, contacts, audio recordings, call … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on WA: SW for everything on a cell phone was overbroad

W.D.Va.: SW for defendant’s cell phone for emails was ordered modified to more narrow the search to drug offenses

The search warrant for the defendant’s cell phone for emails was ordered modified to more narrow the search to drug offenses. Defendant also acceded to an order to open his phone with a fingerprint. [Note that this is a contested … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: SW for defendant’s cell phone for emails was ordered modified to more narrow the search to drug offenses

D.Ore.: SW for all emails for 6½ months was overbroad; it could be narrowed for word search

A search warrant to Google for all emails from the target’s accounts from October 1, 2016 to April 14, 2017 was overbroad. It was a sex trafficking investigation, but the request can be narrowed because Google can word search and … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Ore.: SW for all emails for 6½ months was overbroad; it could be narrowed for word search

MS: “The description ‘stolen property’ is no description” for particularity

The affidavit for the search warrant satisfied probable cause to believe items were stolen, but the search warrant’s particularity failed because “The description ‘stolen property’ is no description” at all. More is required. Sutton v. State, 2018 Miss. LEXIS 128 … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on MS: “The description ‘stolen property’ is no description” for particularity

E.D.Mo.: No joint venture shown with Philippines LEOs in seizure of def’s suitcase there

The search in the Philippines was not a joint venture with the United States, so the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to it. “There is no evidence that the FBI was aware that items from Defendant’s home were in the suitcase. … Continue reading

Posted in Foreign searches, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: No joint venture shown with Philippines LEOs in seizure of def’s suitcase there

M.D.Fla.: SW’s particularity had a reference back to “property connected with the above listed crime(s)” and that’s particular

Despite renting a hotel room in a false name, defendant had standing to challenge the search of the room because he rented it and he was sleeping there and had his stuff there. The search warrant was based on an … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: SW’s particularity had a reference back to “property connected with the above listed crime(s)” and that’s particular

OH8: SW for “biological and/or forensic evidence” in a sex crime permitted seizure of a towel

The search warrant specifically stated that police would search for items that might have biological and/or forensic material and any other evidence tending to establish rape, but it didn’t specify a towel. The towel seized fell under the scope of … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on OH8: SW for “biological and/or forensic evidence” in a sex crime permitted seizure of a towel

CA11: The exact description in the SW was incorrect, but the attachment cured it

“Importantly, the warrant itself refers only to ‘[t]he premises located at: 1701 Bainbridge Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32507.’ Although Attachment A incorrectly attributes that address to the trailer, the photo and description support the conclusion that the trailer and building are … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA11: The exact description in the SW was incorrect, but the attachment cured it