S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

Email warrant was particular enough with “practical accuracy”: “But the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is ‘on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.’ United States v. Tompkins, 118 F.4th 280, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2024); see also Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 102 (rejecting defendant’s argument that ‘the warrant was insufficiently particular because the government and the magistrate judge failed to specify the search terms and protocols ex ante in the warrant’).” United States v. Guan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11221 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2026).*

Minor discrepancies between the officer’s testimony, police report, and bodycam don’t undermine his credibility. The bodycam shows the probable cause. United States v. Darwah, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10143 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026).*

Failure to timely signal justified appellant’s stop. United States v. Ausherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271733 (D. Neb. Dec. 10, 2025).*

This entry was posted in E-mail, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.