There was a typo in the affidavit for search warrant for emails, and the government procured another. The typo wasn’t even material because a “common sense” reading of the whole affidavit shows it was typographical error that could be overcome. And, the issue was mooted by the second warrant. United States v. Jain, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218105 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019)*:
The Second Circuit “has explained that when information within a search warrant permits the establishment of intended—but imperfectly scribed—dates, the document is not rendered deficient.” United States v. Waker, 534 F.3d 168, 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Velardi v. Walsh, 40 F.3d 569, 576 (2d Cir. 1994)). Here, the April 1, 2018 date restriction represents a typographical error because this date limitation would otherwise restrict the search warrant to targeting a facially non-existent class of documents, i.e. materials from between December 1, 2009 and February 1, 2014 that were created on or after April 1, 2018. The search warrant’s reference to the accompanying affidavit ensures that the Magistrate Judge and agent were aware of the date range intended to be covered by the search. Id. Relying on a “commonsense” interpretation of the warrant, the Court denies defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the October 1, 2018 search warrant on the alternative grounds that the error in the search warrant was a minor typographical one that did not vitiate the warrant.