MO: SW for first structure on left was particular where the actual first was a hidden building and second was a shed

Defendant claimed that the search warrant wasn’t particular enough because it described defendant’s house as the first structure on the left on private road. Defendant shows that there were two others, but the first wasn’t visible from the road and the second was just a shed. This was sufficient particularity. State v. Hardy, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 792 (Aug. 18, 2016) [Note to readers: While generally the product of a search can never justify it [except perhaps for the unfortunate Utah v. Strieff], that rule doesn’t apply to particularity. If the police found the right house and didn’t hit the wrong one first or second, and that has happened plenty of time, the proof is in the pudding.]

Stop sign violation was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop, then he fled from the car. Commonwealth v. Brantley, 2016 Mass. App. LEXIS 103 (Aug. 18, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.