Category Archives: Particularity

D.Minn.: Particularity in social media SWs is still evolving, and reliance on SW here was reasonable

Here, a Facebook warrant that allegedly lacked particularity was still close enough for the good faith exception. The law of particularity in social media warrants is still evolving, and it was reasonable for the officer to rely on the issuing … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Particularity in social media SWs is still evolving, and reliance on SW here was reasonable

TN: Merely citing to the particularity requirement not effective appellate argument without context

Defendant’s particularity argument fails for lack of cogent argument: “Defendant’s first question regarding the probable cause requirement has already been answered, and Defendant offers no evidence or argument in support of his apparent challenge to the particularity of the warrant. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Emergency / exigency, Particularity | Comments Off on TN: Merely citing to the particularity requirement not effective appellate argument without context

DE: “Any and all data” on a cell phone was a general warrant

A cell phone search warrant for any and all data without restriction was not particular and amounted to a general warrant. The use of the product of the search was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, No. … Continue reading →

Posted in General warrant, Particularity | Comments Off on DE: “Any and all data” on a cell phone was a general warrant

CA4: Dog sniff before traffic ticket finished was reasonable

Dog sniff occurred here during the initial ordinary incidents of the traffic stop and writing a ticket so it didn’t extend the stop. United States v. Junkins, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24174 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). Defendant’s vehicle was … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA4: Dog sniff before traffic ticket finished was reasonable

CA8: SW for CP didn’t include “cell phone” in “electronic devices,” but GFE covers it

The search warrant here was for electronic devices that could hold child pornography, and it failed to specifically mention defendant’s cell phone. The good faith exception, however, overcame this omission of particularity. United States v. Pospisil, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on CA8: SW for CP didn’t include “cell phone” in “electronic devices,” but GFE covers it

E.D.N.Y.: Any RS was dispelled before stop

The officer may have had reasonable suspicion as he approached the defendant, but, as he got closer, suspicion was dispelled. No reasonable suspicion for the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Chavous, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131326 (E.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Any RS was dispelled before stop

OH5: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases

“While this appears to be a case of first impression in Ohio, other states have uniformly held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases.” It follows State ex rel. A.R. v. C.R., 1999 UT 43, … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OH5: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child protection cases

CA8: Cell tower warrant to ID robbers was reasonable and with PC

Cell phone tower warrant in an effort to solve multiple robberies by identifying repeated phone use was reasonable when the question is a “substantial basis,” which there was. United States v. James, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20336 (8th Cir. July … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA8: Cell tower warrant to ID robbers was reasonable and with PC

D.Kan.: Geofence warrants have to satisfy the particularity requirement

A geofence warrant has to be narrowly tailored for particularity. Here, the government sought identifying information about what cell phones were in a government building. (The building, crime, and date of the occurrence are not disclosed.) In re Info. That … Continue reading →

Posted in geofence, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Geofence warrants have to satisfy the particularity requirement

CA9: Body cam video of unreasonable warrantless entry to house should have been suppressed; but harmless

The warrantless entry into defendant’s house and body cam recording of him violated the Fourth Amendment. The other evidence, however, was overwhelming, so was harmless. United States v. Holiday, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15884 (9th Cir. May 27, 2021). Where … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Body cam video of unreasonable warrantless entry to house should have been suppressed; but harmless

N.D.Ind.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to provide the particularity, but it can if incorporated

The search warrant here is directed at a place and it’s not required to tie a person to it, unless it aids particularity. The affidavit for the warrant does not need to be particular but the warrant itself does. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Particularity, Staleness, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to provide the particularity, but it can if incorporated

CA6: What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant?

What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant? “After a lengthy investigation, the federal government uncovered substantial evidence that Dwayne Sheckles was a Louisville distributor for a large drug-trafficking ring. Sheckles pleaded guilty but reserved the right … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Nexus, Particularity, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA6: What is sufficient probable cause for a CSLI or tracking warrant?

CA7: State cell phone tracking order issued with PC and was particular

Police got information that cell phone -5822 was used to arrange drug sales. They called the number and set up a few controlled buys. Then they got a state court tracking order for the phone. There is no indication that … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA7: State cell phone tracking order issued with PC and was particular

D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021). The … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

N.D.Ga.: Cell tower dumps to attempt to solve 12 robberies did not require SW

There were 12 robberies and officers got cell tower dumps to attempt to figure out the phone involved. Cell tower dumps did not require a search warrant. United States v. Rhodes, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75184 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 20, … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Hot pursuit, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Cell tower dumps to attempt to solve 12 robberies did not require SW

CA9: Inaccuracies in SW’s place to be searched didn’t misdirect officers; QI applies

The inaccuracies in the search warrant the officer sought weren’t enough to misidentify the place to be searched. Therefore, defendants didn’t violate clearly established law. Hill v. County of Benewah, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10781 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021).* … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Particularity, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: Inaccuracies in SW’s place to be searched didn’t misdirect officers; QI applies

D.Mont.: Particularity for the property to be searched was shown

Defendant showed standing on the totality to challenge the search of the property where he rented a room. Particularity was shown for the place to be searched. United States v. Dolphay, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66415 (D. Mont. Apr. 6, … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Particularity for the property to be searched was shown

OR: SW for evidence of murder on cell phone was general search as to its pictures

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone permitted officers to search for location information, texts, and calls around the time of the murder. It also permitted a search for evidence of attempted murder. Officers found a picture of a gun … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, General warrant, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: SW for evidence of murder on cell phone was general search as to its pictures

D.N.M.: Business records SW was particular where limited to firearms offense

The business records search here was not overbroad as enabling a search of all records; just for violations of firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). It was particular enough. United States v. Warner, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62302 (D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Excessive force, Particularity, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Business records SW was particular where limited to firearms offense

E.D.N.Y.: SW for email on devices as evidence of wire fraud permits seizure and search of the devices

Where the crux of a wire fraud is provable by email, a search warrant for defendant’s electronic devices was reasonable because cell phones and computers would likely have email access on them. That was just common sense, and the affiant … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: SW for email on devices as evidence of wire fraud permits seizure and search of the devices