Category Archives: Particularity

N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

“That said, specificity is ‘relative,’ and a warrant ‘need not be more specific than knowledge allows.’ United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, law enforcement is required to particularize a warrant only to … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting

Defendant’s live-in girlfriend consented to a search of their apartment when he was arrested and removed. He can’t invoke Randolph because he never objected. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100923 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025). Defendant’s refusal … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity, Privileges | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting

AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

In a Medicaid fraud case, the state did not show probable cause to believe evidence would be found on the cell phone of the Medicaid provider. The search warrant was also not particular for the cell phone. The warrant authorized … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

In this child pornography case, the warrant was narrowed by the attached affidavit. In addition, the generality of the warrant is determined by what the officers did, not what they thought. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89056 … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

Defendant was suspected of stealing trailers, and they were seen at his house. This did not justify a search warrant for documents in his house. In addition, the good faith exception did not apply. Thomas v. State, 2025 Ind. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

Officers went to New Hampshire on a criminal investigation for a Massachusetts crime, and they ended up seizing defendant’s cell phone to preserve evidence, bringing it back to Massachusetts where it was searched. The common law power of citizen’s arrest … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Common law, Conflict of laws, Particularity | Comments Off on MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

S.D.Ill.: Mistake in SW address didn’t mislead police; no IAC for not raising it

Mistakes in search warrant papers happen, and they don’t suppress the search unless they are meaningful and prejudicial to the process. Here, it was a wrong address cured by other things that sent the police to the right place. McBride … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Mistake in SW address didn’t mislead police; no IAC for not raising it

CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad–withdrawn

The “evidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this child pornography search warrant made it overbroad. United States v. Holcomb, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7135 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (opinion withdrawn, new opinion to follow, United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad–withdrawn

M.D.Ga.: Cell phone in car of drug dealer was seizable and searched with particular SW

Cell phone found in the car of one reasonably believed to be a drug dealer was searched by a warrant that was particular and with probable cause. United States v. Chambers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53490 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Cell phone in car of drug dealer was seizable and searched with particular SW

D.Minn.: SW’s failure to include motel name, address, and room number failed particularity

The search warrant was ostensibly for a particular Motel 6 and room number, but the warrant completely omitted reference to the place to be searched. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47675 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2025). When … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Minn.: SW’s failure to include motel name, address, and room number failed particularity

VA: Driver can’t consent to search of passenger’s purse

Driver’s consent to search did not extend to a woman’s purse that obviously wasn’t his. Myers v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 4, 2025). On the totality of the circumstances, including a suspected drug transaction, the vehicle’s evasive … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on VA: Driver can’t consent to search of passenger’s purse

NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

Defendant’s motion to suppress based on an apparent misdescription of the place to be searched wasn’t resolved below, so the case is remanded for further development. People v. Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1170 … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

For this cell phone search, “As explained above, however, the first and fourth search categories are sufficiently specific, and defendant conceded below that the third category is sufficiently specific. Further, the sixth category’s command to search for location information—as circumscribed … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

“An officer’s use of a Taser in dart-mode ‘constitute[s] an intermediate, significant level of force.’ … But under the Graham factors, Officer Swindling’s brief Taser use was justified under the circumstances. First, Sharif had assaulted his daughter’s mother; stolen a … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

CA6: Impeaching def’s trial testimony about the search of his property using his proffer agreement was prejudicial, but harmless

Impeaching defendant’s trial testimony about the search of his property using his proffer agreement was prejudicial, but it was harmless on this record. They could have cross-examined without it. United States v. Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354 (6th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Inventory, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Impeaching def’s trial testimony about the search of his property using his proffer agreement was prejudicial, but harmless

GA: SW for blood BAC doesn’t also allow search for drugs

A search warrant for blood BAC doesn’t also allow search for drugs. State v. Johnson, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 18 (Jan. 28, 2025). Defendant was on supervised release and the search of his cell phone producing child pornography was reasonable. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probation / Parole search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on GA: SW for blood BAC doesn’t also allow search for drugs

E.D.Mich.: Civil Franks violation was “well established” and QI denied

Plaintiff was arrested for child sexual abuse. The child recanted, and the prosecutor involved was disbarred for misconduct in this case. Plaintiff’s claim for a Franks violation was well established by 1978, and qualified immunity denied. MacMaster v. Busacca, 2025 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Civil Franks violation was “well established” and QI denied

CA3: Conviction for threats by internet justified supervised release condition of computer monitoring

Where defendant was convicted of making threats over the internet to a Congressman, a two year computer monitoring condition was reasonable and did not violate the First and Fourth Amendment. United States v. Hall, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1109 (3d … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Excessive force, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Probation / Parole search, Strip search | Comments Off on CA3: Conviction for threats by internet justified supervised release condition of computer monitoring

CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

The search warrant was for 8977 Deer Trail Run, but it turned out to be two properties. “From all outward appearances there was only one property, not two. The officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith in relying on the … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

MA: SW for “controlled substances” without specifying anything in particular was overbroad

Search warrant for “controlled substances” without specifying anything in particular, including what the controlled buy allegedly was, was overbroad. In addition, the warrant wasn’t present at the search, so it can’t help limit the search [which seems kind of a … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Overbreadth, Particularity, Strip search | Comments Off on MA: SW for “controlled substances” without specifying anything in particular was overbroad