Category Archives: Particularity

E.D.Mich.: Frisk that went inside defendant’s pants was unreasonable

A frisk that went inside defendant’s pants was unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202764 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025). When a stop revealed a holster when the defendant got out of the vehicle, a further intrusion … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Frisk that went inside defendant’s pants was unreasonable

E.D.Ky.: If cell phone warrant is overbroad, remedy is to suppress the overbroad part, not all

“Assuming, without deciding, that the Cellphone Warrant was overbroad due to lack of a timeframe limitation, this finding would not mean that all evidence seized under the cellphone warrant is subject to suppression. The proper remedy is to suppress only … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: If cell phone warrant is overbroad, remedy is to suppress the overbroad part, not all

CA2: One has to preserve the 4A claim for a conditional plea

Defendant didn’t properly preserve his Fourth Amendment claim for appeal from a conditional plea. United States v. Smurphat, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26002 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2025). “A search warrant limited to a single dwelling apartment is sufficiently particular … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on CA2: One has to preserve the 4A claim for a conditional plea

CA11: Officers reasonably concluded that this was one residence without apartments

“At the time the officers swore out and executed the warrant, the officers believed 4279 Violet Circle was a single-family home that Schmitz occupied.” The officers’ investigation for months never indicated that the premises included three efficiency apartments. “In sum, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA11: Officers reasonably concluded that this was one residence without apartments

D.Kan.: Affidavit emailed with SW to judge was considered “attached”

In overcoming a warrant particularity challenge cured by the affidavit, the government satisfied its burden that the affidavits in support of the warrant were emailed to the issuing judge as two pdf files in the same email. They weren’t, of … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Nexus, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Affidavit emailed with SW to judge was considered “attached”

D.Minn.: Particularity for PC doesn’t mean BRD

The particularity requirement for a warrant doesn’t mean the specificity for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Banks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177576 (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2025):

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Particularity for PC doesn’t mean BRD

OR: CP warrant was overbroad

The warrant for defendant’s computer was overbroad in seeking alleged child pornography of others than the known alleged victims, essentially based on assumptions about child pornographers. State v. Schult, 343 Or. App. 376 (Sep. 10, 2025). This is a rarity:

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: CP warrant was overbroad

WA: SW for electronic devices in theft case was overbroad when sexual images were viewed

Defendant was a suspect in thefts. Police seized his briefcase and found electronic devices inside. The search warrant for the electronic devices produced a video of defendant having sex with his incapacitated girlfriend a decade earlier, which led to his … Continue reading →

Posted in General warrant, Particularity | Comments Off on WA: SW for electronic devices in theft case was overbroad when sexual images were viewed

N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation

“To the extent the lack of an address lessens a warrant’s particularity, the other information more than makes up for it. … In this case, Walters highlights one factual error: No glass door bearing the numbers ‘13624’ existed when the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation

CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

The warrant for records was particular, albeit for 15 years worth of bank records, but it matched the time period under investigation, 1/1/05-11/11/19. And the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gyetvay, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20080 (11th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

S.D.N.Y.: Abandoning three large dogs to flee is more than just “mere refusal to cooperate”

“At the very least, leaving three large dogs effectively unrestrained in a public place to flee from law enforcement certainly amounts to more than the ‘mere refusal to cooperate’ that is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Cf. [Wardlow, 528 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Abandoning three large dogs to flee is more than just “mere refusal to cooperate”

D.Wyo.: SW’s catch-all phrase was still limited to drugs

“The warrant in this case has a catch-all phrase as to the types of evidence to be searched but is affirmatively limited to evidence of drug trafficking, manufacture, delivery, and possession. The warrant therefore satisfies the requirement described in cases … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Collective knowledge, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Wyo.: SW’s catch-all phrase was still limited to drugs

N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine

The government admits that the warrant lacked particularity, but they sought to use the good faith exception to sustain a limited search. The problem there is that the person who sought the warrant didn’t search it, and he instructed the … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine

CO: Incorporation of SW affidavit saves warrant from lack of particularity

“[T]he warrant in this case authorized collection of location data and certain message content surrounding the crimes. While the warrant could have been more particular by limiting each category using the language ‘related to the crimes,’ the warrant’s incorporation of … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CO: Incorporation of SW affidavit saves warrant from lack of particularity

N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

“That said, specificity is ‘relative,’ and a warrant ‘need not be more specific than knowledge allows.’ United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, law enforcement is required to particularize a warrant only to … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting

Defendant’s live-in girlfriend consented to a search of their apartment when he was arrested and removed. He can’t invoke Randolph because he never objected. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100923 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025). Defendant’s refusal … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Particularity, Privileges | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting

AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

In a Medicaid fraud case, the state did not show probable cause to believe evidence would be found on the cell phone of the Medicaid provider. The search warrant was also not particular for the cell phone. The warrant authorized … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

In this child pornography case, the warrant was narrowed by the attached affidavit. In addition, the generality of the warrant is determined by what the officers did, not what they thought. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89056 … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

Defendant was suspected of stealing trailers, and they were seen at his house. This did not justify a search warrant for documents in his house. In addition, the good faith exception did not apply. Thomas v. State, 2025 Ind. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

Officers went to New Hampshire on a criminal investigation for a Massachusetts crime, and they ended up seizing defendant’s cell phone to preserve evidence, bringing it back to Massachusetts where it was searched. The common law power of citizen’s arrest … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Common law, Conflict of laws, Particularity | Comments Off on MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home