W.D.Tex.: Attachment for particularity doesn’t have to be attached

Defendant consented to look in his bedroom for proof of identity. It was not, however, limited to one place defendant suggested it might be. United States v. Mackey, 334 Fed. Appx. 32 (8th Cir. 2009)* (unpublished).

The District Court’s finding that defendant’s consent to search the cab and trailer of his tractor trailer was supported by the evidence. United States v. Norwood, 333 Fed. Appx. 97 (7th Cir. 2009)* (unpublished).

Under Groh, attachment does not have to be attached, as long as it is referred to. “[E]ven if the Defendant was presented the warrant without the attachments, some circuits have held that it is sufficient either for the warrant to incorporate the supporting document by reference or for the supporting document to be attached to the warrant itself. United States v. Silva, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47873 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.