County Treasurers issue LPNs in Nebraska, and their error that led to defendant’s stop is not chargeable to law enforcement, and the exclusionary rule would not be applied. State v. Bromm, 285 Neb. 193, 826 N.W.2d 270 (2013).*

The Michigan Supreme Court denies review of a cell phone search incident case because of the apparent likelihood of the judgment being affirmed by harmless error. People v. Crowell, 493 Mich. 937, 825 N.W.2d 585 (2013)* (per curiam).

If you are going to allege a failure to particularity, you should also say how and why. Without how and why, the court often has nothing to go on [which is true], and it often is easily remedied by the government, as here. United States v. White, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185938 (W.D. Mo. November 30, 2012), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18006 (W.D. Mo. February 11, 2013):

Both defendants also contend that the search warrants were invalid because they did not describe the properties in question with sufficient particularity. They do not specifically allege, however, in what manner the descriptions of the places to be searched was deficient.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the description of the place to be searched is whether the place is described with sufficient particularity so as to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched. United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371 (8th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979). Thus, where a search warrant contained information that particularly identified the place to be searched, the court has found the description to be sufficient even though it listed the wrong address. United States v. McCain, 677 F.2d 657, 660-61 (8th Cir.1982). Moreover, where the same officer both applied for and executed the warrant, a mistaken search is unlikely. McCain, 677 F.2d at 661.

In this case, there was ample testimony from Officer Carpenter, the affiant, regarding his efforts to sufficiently identify each property in the affidavits in support of the search warrants. There was also considerable testimony from other officers that would establish the location and description of each property, which were located in a very rural and secluded area. ...

Defendants argued a failure of knock-and-announce. The court finds the officers knocked for two minutes and got no answer, even though they could see food on the stove through the window, suggesting somebody was home and not responding. The entry was not unreasonable. United States v. Acton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18591 (N.D. Ala. January 23, 2013),* [clearly reasonable; not even close; SCOTUS has approved of 15 seconds], R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18591 (N.D. Ala. January 23, 2013).*

Undercover officers invited in the house corroborated the CI’s information. United States v. Slaton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18662 (E.D. Ky. February 12, 2013).*

Defendant claimed that there was no probable cause for the search under the warrant, but the court concludes that there is and the affidavit is far more than “bare bones” in its detail. United States v. Greninger, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17911 (E.D. Tex. January 17, 2013).*

Defendant is a deputy U.S. Marshal, and he was indicted for abusing arrestees and covering it up. When he was arrested, his Blackberry and work laptop were seized. He did not provide an affidavit with the motion to suppress showing that he had a privacy interest in the hard drive that connected to the USM network. United States v. Linder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18346 (N.D. Ill. February 12, 2013):

The facts set forth in Linder's affidavit do not change this Court's conclusion that Linder cannot credibly claim to have had a subjective expectation of privacy in the data stored on his Blackberry device and network drives. Linder's affidavit does not set forth facts sufficient to establish a material dispute warranting an evidentiary hearing on the issue. While he explains his use of the devices, he does not present details necessary to show there is a dispute of material fact regarding his subjective beliefs about the use of those devices. For example, Linder does not assert that a supervisor at the U.S. Marshal Service informed him the files on his Blackberry and H drive were inaccessible to others, nor does he claim that a trainer at his Computer Security Awareness Training classes suggested to him that files stored on his devices would remain private. In fact, he does not point to a single individual in the U.S. Marshal Service whose statement or conduct could conceivably have brought him to believe he had a privacy interest in the files stored on his Blackberry and H drive. The Court finds that without these or similar representations, a suppression hearing would serve no purpose.

For example, had Linder presented evidence that a supervisor, trainer, or fellow Deputy U.S. Marshal communicated to him that files stored on his government-issued Blackberry and the corresponding network drives were private, an evidentiary hearing would give the Court an opportunity to make credibility determinations regarding the individuals who made those statements. ...

Later, the court dismissed the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Linder, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29641 (N.D. Ill. March 5, 2013).