Category Archives: Particularity

W.D.Pa.: SW for cell phone on def at time of drug arrest was particular

Defendant’s cell phone particularity objection to the warrant fails because it showed (1) crime involved, (2) ID’ed them as found on him at time with a gun and drugs, and (3) showed nexus. Also, the good faith exception would apply. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: SW for cell phone on def at time of drug arrest was particular

CA2: Car not named in SW could be seized and searched incident to forfeiture

The warrant here was for defendant’s house and grounds. No vehicles were mentioned even though officers had knowledge defendant dealt drugs at least from one. On executing the warrant, they found the vehicle and seized it for forfeiture. Searching it … Continue reading →

Posted in Forfeiture, Particularity, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA2: Car not named in SW could be seized and searched incident to forfeiture

N.D.Cal.: Typo in list of crimes being investigated in affidavit for SW could be overlooked

A typo in the affidavit for warrant including murder as one of the crimes under investigation could be overlooked. United States v. Pokorny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217899 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2026). Patdown searches are a part of institutional … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Typo in list of crimes being investigated in affidavit for SW could be overlooked

CA: Two SWs for ballots alleging no crime

In Bonta v. Bianco, S295901 (Cal. Sep. 24, 2026), the California Supreme Court dealt with two search warrants to seize ballots from a prior election. The AG of California ordered the return of the ballots because the warrant application specified … Continue reading →

Posted in General warrant, Particularity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA: Two SWs for ballots alleging no crime

GA: Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue

Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue. Walker v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 301 (Sep. 22, 2026). Defendant admitted that marijuana might be in the car, so the smell of marijuana which … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on GA: Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue

CA3: Officers made reasonable effort to determine whether house was multi-use

Defendant lived on the second floor of a house that was not zoned as an apartment building and had no outward appearance there were separate residences. The warrant was for the whole place. The downstairs resident wasn’t the person they … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA3: Officers made reasonable effort to determine whether house was multi-use

GA: Facebook warrant was way overbroad and should have been suppressed, but harmless on whole record

The search warrant for defendant’s Facebook account was overbroad where it sought ten months of information where the alleged crime was only over a couple of days and covered “illegal activities.” Despite the illegal search, the conviction is affirmed because … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Overbreadth, Particularity, Probable cause, Social media warrants, Standing | Comments Off on GA: Facebook warrant was way overbroad and should have been suppressed, but harmless on whole record

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