Category Archives: Particularity

CAAF: SW’s incorporated affidavit satisfied particularity, reliance on CA10 case not CAAF case was error

The military judge’s restrictive determination of particularity to exclude evidence while relying on a Tenth Circuit case instead of precedent from this court was an abuse of discretion. The incorporated affidavit was sufficient to show probable cause and particularity under … Continue reading

Posted in Immigration arrests, Military searches, Particularity | Comments Off on CAAF: SW’s incorporated affidavit satisfied particularity, reliance on CA10 case not CAAF case was error

CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

Defendant was a suspect in a drug investigation, and they got search warrants for his place and cell phones, not knowing even how many there were or what they looked like. The warrants were with probable cause. The search for … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

D.Idaho: Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on property is a separate living quarters requiring separate PC and nexus

“The Court agrees with Mr. Newby that the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] was its own residence—not curtilage—and therefore required its own probable cause finding. By authorizing the search of both residences, the warrant was indeed defective. But crucially, law enforcement … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on property is a separate living quarters requiring separate PC and nexus

CA6: Defs’ use of Facebook to discuss their crime justified SW to Facebook

Defendants used Facebook to discuss their criminal enterprise, and the warrant for Facebook was not overbroad. United States v. Fordham, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21811 (6th Cir. July 22, 2026).* A controlled buy arranged through defendant’s cell phone supported the … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus, Particularity, Social media warrants, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA6: Defs’ use of Facebook to discuss their crime justified SW to Facebook

C.D.Cal.: SW for all software in gambling case was overbroad and no GFE

Defendant is accused of an illegal gambling operation in his home. The search warrant for software on the computer device is fatally overbroad. The warrant swept up everything, was overbroad, and the good faith exception did not apply. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: SW for all software in gambling case was overbroad and no GFE

CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

CA3: Smell of MJ but none found can still be PC

The smell of marijuana is probable cause even if none is found in the subsequent search. The absence of marijuana only mitigates the probable cause, not eliminate it. United States v. Loveings, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (3d Cir. June … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Smell of MJ but none found can still be PC

GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

The warrant was all inclusive of drug information including use of the proceeds, and it didn’t violate particularity. Ball v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Apr. 30, 2026):*

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

“To the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

This Facebook warrant for information about gang activity was based on probable cause and was particular enough, considering the context of what the government was looking for. In any event, it wasn’t so bad that the good faith exception didn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

CA3: Cell phone warrant for CSAM could be broad because of possible hiding and misidentifying files

This CSAM cell phone warrant was broad, but that’s a recognition that files could have false names to hide them. It was not unreasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11323 (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2026):

Posted in Cell phones, Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on CA3: Cell phone warrant for CSAM could be broad because of possible hiding and misidentifying files

CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

“The warrant authorized a search of 10 McGinnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. The correct address, Mr. Davis said, was 10 Meginnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. And beyond the address, the warrant contained no description of the house.” The suppression hearing … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Protective sweep, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

MN: Geofence warrant was not particular

The Minnesota Constitution doesn’t categorically prohibit geofence warrants, but here the warrant was not particular as to all those swept up. Reversed and remanded to the court of appeals (rev’g State v. Contreras-Sanchez, 5 N.W.3d 151 (Minn. App. 2024)). State … Continue reading

Posted in geofence, Particularity | Comments Off on MN: Geofence warrant was not particular

CA10: Apple SW was insufficiently particular, but GFE still applies

“We agree with Kimberley that the Apple search warrant was insufficiently particularized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the Government has shown the good faith exception to the warrant requirement … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Nighttime search, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: Apple SW was insufficiently particular, but GFE still applies

CO: Incorporated and attached affidavit to SW narrowed its scope

The warrant included the application for it as defining its scope and it was attached. That limited the time and subject matter of the search. People v. Stauch, 2026 COA 22 (Apr. 2, 2026). The inventory of defendant’s car was … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Independent source, Inventory, Particularity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CO: Incorporated and attached affidavit to SW narrowed its scope

IA: Backpack carried into premises by visitor just before SW executed was within scope of warrant

Police were watching a Des Moines house waiting to execute a search warrant. Defendant showed up and entered the house with a backpack. Then they entered on the warrant. The backpack was within the particular description in the warrant. When … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on IA: Backpack carried into premises by visitor just before SW executed was within scope of warrant

E.D.Pa.: “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular

In a child pornography case, “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular enough. United States v. Margerum, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65406 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2026):

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: “computer(s), smart device(s), cellular phone(s), gaming console hardware(s), software, digital storage media, and their associated peripherals” is particular

D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but qualified immunity applies because the law isn’t clearly established. Dotson v. Acord, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57749 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2026). Plaintiff runs a wildlife rehab place, and … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Qualified immunity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

CA7: Officer did all he could to determine whether place to be searched was single unit or multi-unit

In an anticipatory warrant case, the officer did all he could to determine whether the premises was a single unit or not, and everything suggested it was single. “[T]he agents’ investigation of the facts contained in the warrant, and their … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA7: Officer did all he could to determine whether place to be searched was single unit or multi-unit

CO: Vague description in arrest warrant didn’t justify def’s stop

The description of an arrestee as a 30ish male with the last name starting in “Mc” didn’t justify defendant’s detention in a park. People v. McGee, 2026 CO 14 (Mar. 9, 2026):

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity | Comments Off on CO: Vague description in arrest warrant didn’t justify def’s stop