CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

“The warrant authorized a search of 10 McGinnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. The correct address, Mr. Davis said, was 10 Meginnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. And beyond the address, the warrant contained no description of the house.” The suppression hearing was over whether the warrant failed particularity. No party put in evidence a street sign. Google maps didn’t recognize McGinnis. The District Court had no definitive answer, and the good faith exception applied. The officers didn’t search the wrong place. United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10859 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026).

Disclosure of the CI has nothing to do with the proof at trial, and the warrant was issued with probable cause. This isn’t a ground for 2255 relief. McKinney v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34995 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2026).*

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the government from obtaining the user of IP addresses. United States v. Grace, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82715 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2026).*

The defendant was wanted for murder, and the warrantless protective sweep of his place before a search warrant was obtained was reasonable because officers still had reason to believe other dangerous persons could be there. United States v. Flores, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10890 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Protective sweep, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.