{"id":10036,"date":"2013-12-22T08:47:47","date_gmt":"2013-12-22T03:48:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-12-21T18:39:25","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10036","title":{"rendered":"M.D.Fla.: Reference to crime under investigation is usually sufficient for particularity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>1982&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7577175290690474059&amp;q=Wuagneux&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1006\">Wuagneux<\/a> still lives as the leading particularity case. This warrant referring to the crimes under investigation for particularity wasn\u2019t overbroad. United States v. Kermali, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178169 (M.D. Fla. November 27, 2013):<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The &#8220;particularity&#8221; requirement with respect to authorization to search for and seize fruits and instrumentalities of the crime is also drawn as narrowly as could be expected and allowed the searching agents to reasonably ascertain and identify items within those categories. In Wuagneux, the Eleventh Circuit found that authorization to search for &#8220;property that constitutes evidence of the above-enumerated offenses, fruits of the crimes named-above and property which is or has been used to commit the crimes enumerated herein&#8221; was sufficiently particular. 683 F.2d at 1350 n.5.FN4<\/p>\n<p>FN4 Even if this Court determines that the search warrant was overbroad or insufficiently particular in some respects, the search warrant did not authorize a wide-ranging, exploratory search. The search warrant affidavit presented more than conclusory assertions for consideration by the Magistrate Judge. There is no evidence that the agent who signed the affidavit or the agents who executed the search acted dishonestly or that the warrant was so overly broad on its fact that they could not have reasonably presumed it to be valid. Under these circumstances, the evidence seized should not be suppressed under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Travers, 233 F.3d at 1331; United States v. Rubinstein, No. 09-20611-CR, 2010 WL 2723186, at * 10 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2010); United States v. Lebowitz, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1354-55 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (and cases cited therein).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10036\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10036"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10036\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}