E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant’s particularity wasn’t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don’t have to specify how they are executed. United States v. Akhter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96842 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2026).

The state can’t appeal an order suppressing bodycam video for violation of state statute. It doesn’t fit within the rule permitting appeals of motions to suppress. People v. Schneider, 2026 CO 27 (May 4, 2026).*

Matching the description of a suspect and being in proximity to the crime is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98540 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2026).*

Defendant was being questioned in an interrogation room, and officers were seeking a search warrant for GSR on his hands. He needed to pee, but they wouldn’t let him go alone because they didn’t want him to wash his hands. He went. Then he confessed while waiting for the warrant. No Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation. Dickey v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 133 (May 5, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.