W.D.Ky.: SW particularity and the scope of search that occurred are separate “arguments [that] must not be confused”

The search warrant was particular, and the search was not overbroad, confined within the scope of the warrant. They are separate “arguments [that] must not be confused.” United States v. Aley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59527 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 9, 2018):

Thus, the warrant only authorized the seizure of those items that specifically pertained to Aley’s alleged criminal behavior. Aley’s argument focuses less on the breadth of the language in the warrant and more on the actual search that took place, which he argues included seizing items outside the scope of the warrant. But these two arguments must not be confused. The particularity requirement focuses on whether the scope of the warrant is so great that it authorizes the government to seize more than that which is constitutionally permissible, and the Court sees no such issue with the warrants in this case.