Email warrant was particular enough with \u201cpractical accuracy\u201d: \u201cBut the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is \u2018on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.\u2019 United States v. Tompkins, 118 F.4th 280, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2024); see also Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 102 (rejecting defendant’s argument that \u2018the warrant was insufficiently particular because the government and the magistrate judge failed to specify the search terms and protocols ex ante in the warrant\u2019).\u201d United States v. Guan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11221 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Minor discrepancies between the officer\u2019s testimony, police report, and bodycam don\u2019t undermine his credibility. The bodycam shows the probable cause. United States v. Darwah, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10143 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Failure to timely signal justified appellant\u2019s stop. United States v. Ausherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271733 (D. Neb. Dec. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Email warrant was particular enough with \u201cpractical accuracy\u201d: \u201cBut the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is \u2018on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.\u2019 United States … Continue reading