D.N.J.: “including but not limited to” in SW was not overbroad; it had to be read in context

A search warrant with a particularity clause of “including but not limited to” was not overbroad and had to be read in context of the preceding language. United States v. Schaffer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26257 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2017).*

While there was a likely illegal search of defendant’s hotel room, there was a warrant in progress and it was based on independent probable cause. United States v. Mogros, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25529 (D.Nev. Feb. 23, 2017).*

Defendant claimed limited proficiency in English, but he was merely asked for consent and he otherwise interacted well with the police. The consent was valid. United States v. Marquez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26315 (M.D. La. Feb. 23, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Independent source, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.