CA2: Failure to read a SW isn’t a 4A violation without overseizure

Failure to read a warrant before execution isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation without an overseizure. The cell phone warrant here had search of the cell phone crossed out, permitting only seizure at first. The executing officers didn’t know it had been limited, but they didn’t exceed its scope. Thus, the contents of the phone were not suppressed when they were obtained by a later warrant. United States v. Hampton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16915 (2d Cir. June 11, 2026):

Second, the mere failure to read a warrant before conducting a search—without more—does not render an otherwise reasonable search unreasonable. In United States v. Armstrong, the defendant argued that evidence should be suppressed because, “although a warrant for that apartment had been issued, the police officers, prior to conducting the search, did not have the warrant in hand, had not read the warrant, and had not had its terms read to them.” 406 F. App’x 500, 501 (2d Cir. 2010). We held that the failure to read the warrant did not undermine the reasonableness of the search because the “supervising officer had knowledge that the narcotics division had obtained a search warrant for crack cocaine at Brown’s apartment” and “the supervising officer informed the other officers of the warrant prior to the search.” Id. We concluded that the district court “properly held that such objective information allowed the officers to conduct a reasonable search that fell within constitutional parameters.” Id.; see also United States v. Perrone, 936 F.2d 1403, 1413 n.4 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting, in the course of upholding the denial of a suppression motion, that “the agents in fact did not read” the warrants), decision clarified on reh’g on other grounds, 949 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1991).