CA7: “[T]the Fourth Amendment is not a bulwark against typos.”

DNA warrant for defendant that transposed month and day (11-01 v. 01-11) using military and international convention was still for him. “[T]the Fourth Amendment is not a bulwark against typos.”
United States v. Clark, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10613 (7th Cir. June 6, 2014):

The warrant issued for Clark’s DNA was not unconstitutionally vague. It correctly identified his name, race, sex, and the location where he was housed, and contained what is at most a transposition of the date and month of his birthday. This small error (if it was one, and not just a rendering of his birthday in the day-month-year order that is common throughout much of the world and used by the U.S. military) casts no doubt on the fact that Clark was the intended target. It did not give the officer discretion to search anyone but him, or to collect anything but Clark’s DNA by means of a buccal swab. There was no confusion about who was to be searched and what was to be collected; the Fourth Amendment is not a bulwark against typos.

This entry was posted in Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.