A search warrant authorizing \u201cthe search of said location and any persons found therein and or involved in this investigation … and if the property above described is found there, to seize it and arrest all persons in the unlawful possession thereof, …\u201d violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Thomas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20119 (M.D. Fla. February 28, 2011):<\/p>\n
Even if the Search Warrant incorporated the affidavit and the affidavit accompanied the warrant, as required by Groh v. Ramirez<\/a>, 540 U.S. 551, 557-58 (2004), it would still constitute an unconstitutional general warrant. The Search Warrant purported to authorize law enforcement officers to seize and search persons who were involved in this investigation without defining in any fashion the investigation or the persons or how they were \u201cinvolved,\u201d and without even limiting the authority to \u201cinvolved\u201d persons at or near the Residence. The Search Warrant clearly constituted a general warrant as to \u201cpersons … involved in this investigation\u201d which violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s driving gave reasonable suspicion to believe he was under the influence. United States v. Graves, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20397 (E.D. Va. March 1, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s \u00a7 2255 issue on failure to interview a witness that would have showed her consent to be coerced. The court does not even credit the defendant\u2019s affidavit on this which was eight years after the fact; the affidavit looks suspicious and the signature does not look valid. United States v. Nichols, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20432 (D. Kan. March 1, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading