OH2: Description of “things to be seized” couldn’t be more particular

The search warrant for child pornography was particular and not overbroad. No more particular description was reasonably expected. “Under the circumstances, the search warrant could not reasonably have described the items more precisely.” Defendant’s search residence was in Wisconsin, and he was convicted in Ohio. State v. Maranger, 2018-Ohio-1425, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1574 (2d Dist. Apr. 13, 2018).

The defendant Deputy USMs had an arrest warrant and good reason to believe plaintiff was in his dwelling. Therefore, the entry was valid under Payton, and plaintiff’s Bivens claim fails. Pilchesky v. Barone, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9136 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.