D.Minn.: SW’s failure to include motel name, address, and room number failed particularity

The search warrant was ostensibly for a particular Motel 6 and room number, but the warrant completely omitted reference to the place to be searched. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47675 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2025).

When witnesses to a shooting said that an SUV contained either suspects in the shooting or witnesses to it, there was reasonable suspicion to stop it. As for search of a cell phone, the warrant authorized search and seizure of “any and all” information and things on it, and defendant argued it was a general warrant. However, Officer “Ebert testified that he simply used standard department language that had been approved on many previous occasions.” The good faith exception applied. “We need not consider, and take no position on whether the district court correctly concluded that the cell phone warrant ‘was insufficiently particular and unconstitutionally overbroad.’” United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6230 (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025).

The critical six seconds of video of this shooting supports the officer’s version and not plaintiff’s so qualified immunity applies. Denk v. Miller, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6180 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).*

There was probable cause for the warrant for defendant’s BAC. People v. Coble, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 2061 (Mar. 17, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.