Category Archives: Overbreadth

CA11: Order to Apple to unlock iPad was reasonable under All Writs Act and New York Telephone

The district court’s order to Apple to unlock defendant’s iPad was reasonable and appropriate under the All Writs Act and United States v. New York Telephone Co. Also, seizing an entire Facebook account wasn’t “open and shut” a general warrant, … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off

S.D.N.Y.: The email SW here was limited by time and crime and that made it reasonable and not a general warrant

It is too easy for an email warrant to be a general warrant because there has to be an articulation of what the government is looking for. Moreover, all the emails may be seized so they can be searched looking … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Overbreadth, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off

M.D.Ala.: Govt’s email SW in identity theft scheme is overbroad; applications need to be limited and resubmitted

The government’s email search applications are overbroad and don’t sufficiently protect the privacy rights of the account holders. The government, however, can limit the applications and submit them again. In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with Fifteen … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Overbreadth | Comments Off

D.Kan.: Email and computer SWs were necessarily broad, but not unreasonably broad

“These were not warrants to search for ‘any and all information’ or ‘all computer information’ in defendant’s house. See Christie, 717 F.3d at 1165. Rather, the attachments effectively limited the scope of the searches to material relevant to specific federal … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, E-mail, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

S.D.N.Y.: Govt couldn’t use “all records exception” because of lack of PC support

Securities fraud warrant was way overbroad and can’t be saved by the “all records exception” to search defendant’s business and apartment and seize even personal records. The search was so intrusive it violated the Fourth Amendment because there wasn’t sufficient … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off

TX: Texas Const. grants no special protection to third party information; here CSLI and numbers dialed

Third party cell phone information is not protected by the Texas Constitution. It grants no greater rights than the Fourth Amendment. If the drafters wanted it broader, they could have said so. The information was available to law enforcement under … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Overbreadth, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off

OH10: E-mail SW was not overbroad considering it sought evidence of solicitation of minors and the actual execution was limited

The e-mail search warrant in this case authorized the search of “any and all” e-mails. It was reasonable for the issuing magistrate to conclude that e-mails in the e-mail account predating the exchanges between a person answering an advertisement for … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, E-mail, Overbreadth, Warrant execution | Comments Off

N.D.Cal.: Officers knew or should have known target location was multifamily; SW for gun in one unit didn’t permit search of all five

“The issue in defendant Josue Olman Martinez’s motion to suppress is whether it was reasonable for officers to continue to search a property that they may have initially assumed was a single family residence once they knew or should have … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Scope of search | Comments Off

S.D.Cal.: SW which was not overbroad merely by including a “tending to show” phrase

Scanning text messages on a cell phone at the border was reasonable. This wasn’t a full search, and this was just a “non-forensic scan” of the phone and not a “searching inquiry.” This led, however, to a search warrant which … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Overbreadth | Comments Off

S.D.Ohio: Clause in SW that is overbroad requires def to show what was seized under it

One overbroad clause in the search warrant didn’t require exclusion of the rest that was specifically covered. Defendant also didn’t show that which was seized under the overbroad section to have it excluded. United States v. Traum, 2016 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Overbreadth | Comments Off