Category Archives: Overseizure

CA6: Search of building next door to def’s building wasn’t reason to suppress def’s search

Officers with a search warrant for 8537 Old Rutledge Pike, Knox County, Tennessee also searched what they believed was an outbuilding at 8533 with a power cord running between them with no indication it was different property. At worst, this … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Ineffective assistance, Overseizure, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA6: Search of building next door to def’s building wasn’t reason to suppress def’s search

NY2: Search of wallet during a frisk unreasonable

Officers violated the Fourth Amendment during defendant’s frisk when they removed his wallet from his pocket and searched it. People v. Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04920, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4797 (2d Dept. Aug. 10, 2022). The officer … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Overseizure, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on NY2: Search of wallet during a frisk unreasonable

N-M: Cell phone search authorization for one day produced 200,000 images; but still not unreasonable because of how it was done

The search authorization for defendant’s cell phone for location data and images for a particular date was supported by probable cause. The Cellebrite download included 200,000 images, far more than the day in question. While looking for the day in … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Overseizure, Waiver, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N-M: Cell phone search authorization for one day produced 200,000 images; but still not unreasonable because of how it was done

CA10: “[N]o exclusionary rule for evidence gained through … entrapment”

“[T]here is no exclusionary rule for evidence gained through conduct later deemed to be entrapment.” United States v. Christian, 754 Fed. Appx. 747, 750 (10th Cir. 2018). United States v. Christian, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12255 (10th Cir. May 6, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Overseizure | Comments Off on CA10: “[N]o exclusionary rule for evidence gained through … entrapment”

AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

The search authorization for this service member’s cell phone was overbroad and failed to include text messages which were at issue. This failed Leon’s good faith exception: “We disagree, and find the fourth Leon exception clearly applies in this case—that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

CA11: Ptf had no REP in workplace computer, even with personal iPhone backed up on it

Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in her workplace computer from a search by the employer during an audit of her time off related to a second job instigated after a discrimination complaint. The fact she backed her iPhone … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Overseizure, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Ptf had no REP in workplace computer, even with personal iPhone backed up on it

GA: When items not named in SW are found, standard is plain view not relevance

The trial court and court of appeals erred in determining whether a seizure of items outside a search warrant were “relevant” or whether regular plain view applied. It’s plain view, and the case is remanded to the trial court to … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on GA: When items not named in SW are found, standard is plain view not relevance

WA: PC and nexus shown for CSLI warrant before Carpenter

Defendant was a suspect in a diamond theft. Police obtained a search warrant for his cell phone location records and that placed him near the burglary at the time it happened, and there was probable cause for it. The search … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus, Overseizure, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on WA: PC and nexus shown for CSLI warrant before Carpenter

D.Kan.: Seizure under part of SW without PC is suppressed, but remainder valid

“Whitmore’s motions are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, his motion to exclude evidence from his arrest is denied. With respect to the search of the cell phone, the affidavit provides no probable cause for seeking evidence of … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Seizure under part of SW without PC is suppressed, but remainder valid

CA10: PC doesn’t need to be decided where GFE would apply; overbroad SWs are severed

Probable cause does not have to be decided where the good faith exception would apply. The warrant was for firearm evidence and had a cell phone search provision. If the cell phone provision was overbroad, that should be severed and … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Overbreadth, Overseizure, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA10: PC doesn’t need to be decided where GFE would apply; overbroad SWs are severed

CT: Both halves of a duplex can’t be searched under a warrant for one

A search of both halves of a duplex under a search warrant for one was unreasonable and had to be suppressed. State v. Lyons, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 100 (Mar. 30, 2021). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on CT: Both halves of a duplex can’t be searched under a warrant for one

FL1: Sheriff’s Office failed to show TV and PlayStation were lawfully seized during drug search

The Bay County SO executed a drug search warrant at claimant’s father’s house and seized a flat screen TV and PlayStation. Claimant sought return, and the state claimed it was lawfully taken and became county property by operation of law. … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Reasonableness, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on FL1: Sheriff’s Office failed to show TV and PlayStation were lawfully seized during drug search

D.Conn.: When govt raises an exception to warrant requirement, def must rebut in briefing, but cell phone seizure shown unjustified

In response to defendant’s motion to suppress, the government argued search incident, which the defense didn’t rebut in the papers. Motion denied in part. Defendant’s cell phone seizure is suppressed, however, because the government didn’t show justification for its seizure. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Overseizure, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Conn.: When govt raises an exception to warrant requirement, def must rebut in briefing, but cell phone seizure shown unjustified

W.D.Wash.: iCloud SW temporal limit was impractical

An iCloud search warrant was not overbroad because the warrant sought a lot of material. Based on Apple’s protocols, it essentially had to be, and a time restriction wouldn’t be of any use. United States v. Woolard, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overbreadth, Overseizure, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: iCloud SW temporal limit was impractical

AL: A visitor to premises targeted by a SW who is more than a “transient visitor” is subject to search

Defendant was a visitor at a house that was searched under a warrant for drugs. Her purse was searched, too. “Because Powers was more than a ‘transient visitor’ at Moyers’s house and had a known relationship to the premises, and … Continue reading

Posted in Overseizure, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on AL: A visitor to premises targeted by a SW who is more than a “transient visitor” is subject to search

CA7: Computer search condition was not related to crime of conviction and was thus unreasonable

Defendant’s computer search release condition had no rational relationship to the crime. He was not a sex offender and there was no computer link to his crimes. United States v. Morgan, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2972 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Excessive force, Overseizure, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA7: Computer search condition was not related to crime of conviction and was thus unreasonable

OH2: The fact a SW had a laundry list of 182 things to search for and seize isn’t fatal where def doesn’t show what was overseized

The search warrant here was for illegal fireworks and listed 182 items to be seized, including fireworks. “Johnson also contends the warrant is invalid because it authorized the seizure of a boilerplate list of 182 items, all or most of … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Overseizure, Particularity | Comments Off on OH2: The fact a SW had a laundry list of 182 things to search for and seize isn’t fatal where def doesn’t show what was overseized

TX1: SW to seize blood sample implicitly means it can be tested, too

A search warrant for a blood sample implicitly includes testing it. Davis v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 5990 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) July 30, 2020). Probable cause existed for seizure of five years of defendant’s Gmail account. … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Staleness | Comments Off on TX1: SW to seize blood sample implicitly means it can be tested, too

CA2: Second Tasing of nonresisting detainee was unreasonable

On this record, the second Tasing of plaintiff could be found unreasonable for lack of resistance, which the jury did. Jones v. Treubig, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 19883 (2d Cir. June 26, 2020). The search under defendant’s consent for “firearms/evidence” … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Inevitable discovery, Overseizure, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on CA2: Second Tasing of nonresisting detainee was unreasonable

M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required

There was probable cause for issuance of historical cell phone tracking information and connecting defendant to the phone. The affidavit, however, only sought information for one day, but the warrant covered seven days. The overseizure is suppressed because the exclusionary … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Overseizure | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required