D.Del.: Even though this SW was a “general warrant,” it was relied on in good faith

The search warrant was overbroad and potentially a general warrant, but it was, essentially, close enough for government work and it wasn’t entirely clear a search warrant was necessary at the time to search a cell phone. The remedy is to suppress that which exceeds the clear terms of the warrant, the overseizure. Also, it was still done within the good faith exception [which certainly seems counterintuitive; a general warrant should not be subject to good faith]. United States v. Walker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69389 (D. Del. May 29, 2015)*:

I do not think I can say that the officer did not rely upon the warrant. In terms of “good faith,” I consider that he obtained the warrant when, at the time, it was unclear whether he needed a warrant at all. The United States Magistrate Judge approved the warrant. See United States v. Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Fifty-Seven Cents ($92,422.57), 307 F.3d 137, 152 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that the United States Magistrate Judges are “highly qualified,” making it reasonable to rely upon their judgments). The uniform practice in this District is that search warrant applications are also reviewed and approved by Assistant U.S. Attorneys.10 See United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140,153 (3d Cir. 2010) (“reasonable officer would also have confidence in the validity of the warrant after presenting it and having it approved by a [prosecutor] and the Magistrate Judge”). Searching of cell phones, like the searching of computers, involves complicated concepts and specialized expertise that is not the bread and butter of most firearms investigators. Despite what I believe are defects in the search warrant, and that the affidavit is not incorporated into the search warrant, the affidavit indicates a narrower purpose for the search. (E.g., Affidavit, ¶¶ 34-35 [describing the evidence being looked for as being related to firearms and firearms trafficking] and ¶¶ 36 [describing the evidence being looked for as showing possession or use of the cell phone]). Finally, while I have concluded that the subject warrant is a general warrant, the Government was not without arguments as to why it was not, including the reference to firearms statutes in the description of things to be seized. I do not think that most federal “street agents” would know on their own whether the warrant was general. Thus, I do not think the officer’s reliance upon the warrant was so unreasonable as to conclude that there was a lack of good faith in so relying.