D.Neb.: Cut and paste error where address went into “things to be seized” wasn’t fatal where things were apparent from warrant application as a whole

An apparent cut and paste error led to the officer pasting the place to be searched into the things to be seized section of the warrant looking for clothing from a robbery. The affidavit included pages of photographs of the things to potentially to be seized. “The inclusion of the address in the format of the search warrant as the item to be searched for can best be described as a minor, unintentional drafting oversight unnoticed by either the drafting officer or the issuing judge. See Hamilton, 591 F.3d at 1029.” Somewhere, however, there also was a potential list of things to be seized, and this is all enough to overcome the exclusionary rule. United States v. Davis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064 (D.Neb. March 4, 2016).

Defendant understood that he was consenting to a complete search of his iPhone both orally and in writing. United States v. Grant, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49666 (N.D.Ala. March 10, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Scope of search, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.