Category Archives: Particularity

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

CA10: Def’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver

Defendant’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver. United States v. Cooks, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6547 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026). Defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal alleging conclusory violations of the Fourth and Fifth … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on CA10: Def’s mid-trial motion to suppress can’t be justified and was waiver

CA11: Off-site copying of def’s cell phone after the SW’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B).

Off-site copying of defendant’s cell phone after the warrant’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B). United States v. Hernandez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4990 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2026). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off on CA11: Off-site copying of def’s cell phone after the SW’s expiration date was permitted by Rule 41(e)(2)(B).

D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices

The warrant for CSAM was specific enough and didn’t permitt and unlimited search of the devices. “Although the language of the warrant issued here could have been drafted more artfully, the court finds the limiting language sufficiently connects the items … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices

S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

Email warrant was particular enough with “practical accuracy”: “But the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is ‘on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.’ United States … Continue reading →

Posted in E-mail, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

D.Colo.: Large volume of emails can be seized for later narrowing search and still be particular

The email warrant was particular enough. While a large volume of information was provided by Google, it was then particularly searched, and that satisfies Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Garcia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Cell phones, E-mail, Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Large volume of emails can be seized for later narrowing search and still be particular

ID: Time on seized video was erroneous and it was within particularity of SW

The search warrant for a GoPro video was valid based on the time of the search shown on the video being erroneous. Practical accuracy is the touchstone, and the correct time could be reconstructed. The warrant was particular. State v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity, Seizure | Comments Off on ID: Time on seized video was erroneous and it was within particularity of SW

E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

Only a governmental entity gets to use the Stored Communications Act to get emails. The defense can’t do it seeking even alleged exculpatory emails. Perry v. Silverthon, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 828 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2026). “Single-incident liability ‘is … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Overbreadth, Particularity, Stored Communications Act | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

OH5: Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity

Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity. State v. Starcher, 2026-Ohio-15, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 11 (5th Dist. Jan. 6, 2026). In a civil case, the reference to Fourth Amendment was a typo for Fourteenth. It will be considered … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OH5: Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity

MA: Overly long GPS monitoring as a condition of probation can be 4A unreasonable

“Whether GPS monitoring as a condition of probation is a reasonable search turns in part on its duration, and the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire ordered duration. Notwithstanding the requirement in … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MA: Overly long GPS monitoring as a condition of probation can be 4A unreasonable

W.D.Wash.: PC was shown for cell phone data for particular number and any number switched to, if provider knows it

Probable cause was shown for phone records for both the number sought and any number the provider knew that the owner had changed to, even without identifying it. And, good faith applied: “Therefore, even if the continuity provision within the … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: PC was shown for cell phone data for particular number and any number switched to, if provider knows it

M.D.Fla.: Unauthorized practice of medicine search warrant justified 6 years of records

A claim of unauthorized practice of medicine authorized a warrant for six years worth of medical files. The good faith exception also applies. United States v. Luzod, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256878 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2025). As to a … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Unauthorized practice of medicine search warrant justified 6 years of records

D.D.C.: Use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial

The use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial. United States v. Blythe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231852 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2025) (interesting read). Just because defense counsel didn’t appeal a losing Fourth Amendment issue doesn’t make … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Privileges | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial

D.Mass.: “All records” relating to wire fraud was particular enough

“The warrant here, and, specifically, the attachment describing the items to be seized, satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Kerrissey argues, first, that the attachment was overbroad because it authorized the seizure of ‘“all records, in whatever form” for multiple … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Mass.: “All records” relating to wire fraud was particular enough