D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices

The warrant for CSAM was specific enough and didn’t permitt and unlimited search of the devices. “Although the language of the warrant issued here could have been drafted more artfully, the court finds the limiting language sufficiently connects the items to be seized to the crime of sexual exploitation of children. See United States v. Tompkins, 118 F.4th 280, 287 (2d Cir. 2024) (citation modified) (‘We have also noted that the Fourth Amendment does not require that search warrants include a perfect description of the data to be searched and seized, including search warrants for digital data.’).” United States v. Quinlan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30725 (D. Vt. Feb. 13, 2026). In addition, defendant was free to move about his house during execution of a CSAM warrant, so he was not in custody when they talked to him. United States v. Quinlan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30724 (D. Vt. Feb. 13, 2026).*

The affidavit for search warrant at least fairly suggested that defendant stored drug proceeds at his place, and that satisfied nexus. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30155 (M.D. La. Feb. 13, 2026).*

The affidavit for warrant showed enough for nexus, and the good faith exception applied. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30155 (M.D. La. Feb. 13, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.