S.D.N.Y.: In a 3 page affidavit for SW, showing the crimes under investigation was particular enough

The affidavits for search warrant are only three pages long, and they reference the crimes under investigation on page one or the first paragraph. That is enough here to show particularity. “The Court concludes that the fact that these brief warrants do not reference the suspected crimes within the paragraphs authorizing seizure does not render them insufficiently particular. ‘[T]here is no settled formula’ in the Second Circuit ‘for determining whether a warrant lacks particularity,’…; rather a warrant must be sufficiently specific ‘to permit the rational exercise of judgment [by the executing officers] in selecting what items to seize.’” This warrant is particular. As to a Franks allegation, “After correcting the errors specifically identified by Sadr, the Court finds that the hypothetical corrected affidavit still establishes probable cause. Accordingly, Sadr has not made a substantial showing of materiality to warrant a Franks hearing on the basis of the misstatements, omissions, and ‘misleading claims’ specifically identified in his memorandum of law. Nor is he entitled to one to determine whether the ‘truth or falsity of these and other misrepresentations’ not specifically identified and not now before the Court were necessary to the probable cause showing.” He had a duty to provide all the misstatements, not just what he says are the important ones. Still, the court deletes the misstatements, adds in the omissions, and then the court retests the affidavit for its showing or probable cause. United States v. Nejad, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14213 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2020).