DE: SW for “trace evidence” was particular; we know what that means

The search warrant might appear general, but it was limited by the things to be searched for. The reference to “trace evidence including but not limited to blood, hair, fibers, fluids, and fingerprints” did not make it unparticular. Trace evidence is readily defined. Officers knew there was a shooting, and “Searching and seizing ballistics evidence in an ongoing shooting investigation was not outside the scope of probable cause.” State v. Martin, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 295 (June 16, 2023).

“Here, reasonable suspicion was based on the proximity of the white vehicle in time and in location to the reported burglary in progress, in addition to the matching vehicle description.” United States v. Ford, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107183 (N.D.Ala. May 16, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106188 (N.D. Ala. June 20, 2023).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging probable cause for his arrest when there was. United States v. Vallare, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106963 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2023).*

Defendant’s indictment for conspiring to conduct an illegal search and seizure was sufficient. United States v. Rosser, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15609 (6th Cir. June 20, 2023).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising a challenge to search of someone else’s cell phone since defendant had no standing. State v. Smith, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 294 (June 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.