Category Archives: Particularity

NC: Defendant abandoned this real property

Defendant abandoned this real property. State v. Moore, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 806 (Oct. 15, 2024). Failure to renew a motion to suppress when the evidence is offered is waiver in this state. State v. Rowdy, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on NC: Defendant abandoned this real property

CA1: Church rectory was objectively a single family dwelling; it had common living areas

It was reasonable for officers seeking a search warrant for a church rectory for child pornography to consider it a single-family dwelling. All the objective information was that it was single family residence. It turned out to be a residence … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA1: Church rectory was objectively a single family dwelling; it had common living areas

D.Neb.: SW for property not overbroad and sought in GF; it objectively was a single-family home

The officers did their due diligence before the search warrant and saw only that defendant’s property was a single-family dwelling. That’s how it appeared, that’s what public records said. Therefore, they searched in good faith. United States v. Rice, 2024 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Neb.: SW for property not overbroad and sought in GF; it objectively was a single-family home

OR: The burden on whether the affidavit was with the warrant at the search is on defendant

When the affidavit satisfies particularity but the defendant alleges the warrant doesn’t, he has the burden of proving that both were not attached to each other or at the scene of the search for guidance. State v. Goode, 335 Or. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Cell site location information, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on OR: The burden on whether the affidavit was with the warrant at the search is on defendant

D.Minn.: “Cars on the property” was particular enough for SW

“Cars on the property” was particular enough for the search warrant for defendant’s property. United States v. Stucky, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166040 (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2024). Plaintiff inmate stated enough to proceed that he was subjected to harassing … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on D.Minn.: “Cars on the property” was particular enough for SW

N.D.Cal.: iCloud SW was particular as to subject and time

This iCloud warrant was based on probable cause and was particular and had a specific time limit. “Certain of the categories of evidence authorized for seizure by the February iCloud Warrant may appear overbroad in isolation but are sufficiently particular … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: iCloud SW was particular as to subject and time

CA4: Def left car door open in traffic stop and that enabled plain view

Defendant’s stop was valid, and he got out of the car leaving the door open. The officer could see the firearm in the car, and that’s plain view. United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20336 (4th Cir. Aug. … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Waiver | Comments Off on CA4: Def left car door open in traffic stop and that enabled plain view

E.D.Mich.: Without showing no PC on remainder of affidavit, Franks challenge fails

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because he doesn’t show that the affidavit does not show probable cause on the remainder. United States v. Chappell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140479 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2024).* The officers apparently didn’t know that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Without showing no PC on remainder of affidavit, Franks challenge fails

NY2: Stopping car for flashing headlights was properly taken as a possible distress call; but stop was excessive

Defendant’s flashing his high beams at a patrol car was legitimately taken as a likely distress call, but the state failed to prove there was any distress, so the continued questioning was unreasonable. People v. Serrano, 2024 NY Slip Op … Continue reading →

Posted in Digital Searches, Good faith exception, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on NY2: Stopping car for flashing headlights was properly taken as a possible distress call; but stop was excessive

WA: Using software to search a cell phone doesn’t violate particularity

Use of software to search a cell phone did not violate the particularity of the warrant. The Fourth Amendment and the state constitution are intended to prevent a general rummaging, and the use of software facilitates people not looking at … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Informant hearsay, Particularity | Comments Off on WA: Using software to search a cell phone doesn’t violate particularity

E.D.N.C.: Military command authorized search for CP on electronics was valid; listing IP addresses of devices not required

Defendant was in the Marine Corps and a Command Authorized Search and Seizure (CASS) for his electronic devices was executed for child pornography. It was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. “In this case, the challenged warrant did not … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Military searches, Particularity, Pretext | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Military command authorized search for CP on electronics was valid; listing IP addresses of devices not required

NY4: Cell phone SW suppressed for no showing of PC or particularity

“Here, the search warrant authorized and directed the police to search for, inter alia, ‘cellular phones (including contents)’ located in defendant’s vehicle. Significantly, the search was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on NY4: Cell phone SW suppressed for no showing of PC or particularity

DE: Def counsel’s failure to challenge PC and particularity in cell phone search warrants post-conviction relief

Defendant sufficiently stated grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel from defense counsel’s failure to challenge the search warrant for lack of probable cause and particularity. “Postconviction relief due to ineffectiveness of counsel must be granted in circumstances where the Court … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Custody, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on DE: Def counsel’s failure to challenge PC and particularity in cell phone search warrants post-conviction relief

CA10: State SW for place in Indian country was done in good faith and is not suppressed

A state search warrant issued by a Tulsa state judge for a place in Indian country was done in good faith at the time under McGirt and would not be suppressed. United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15210 … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA10: State SW for place in Indian country was done in good faith and is not suppressed

CT: Pretrial detainees still have no REP in jail calls

There is no constitutional distinction between pretrial detainees and convicts in a jail for the reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone calls on a jail line phone they knew was recorded. State v. Bember, 2024 Conn. LEXIS 153 (June 25, … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CT: Pretrial detainees still have no REP in jail calls

NH: Grounds to sustain a search must be raised before motion to reconsider

Where the state is relying on the “new crime” exception to the exclusionary rule, it needs to raise it before a motion to reconsider or it’s waived. State v. Rousseau, 2024 N.H. LEXIS 125 (June 18, 2024). Defendant’s criminal history … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on NH: Grounds to sustain a search must be raised before motion to reconsider

CO: When IP address is the PC for a building, SW permits search of whole building

“This case concerns whether a search for Internet-related evidence that extended to a previously unknown basement apartment was reasonable, even though the apartment was not specified in the warrant. The supreme court holds that 1) the warrant’s reference to the … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Waiver | Comments Off on CO: When IP address is the PC for a building, SW permits search of whole building

D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

Defendant cannot get discovery of FBI 302s just to see if the search warrant was based on whatever information that would disclose. United States v. Purkey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104824 (D. Mont. June 11, 2024). After all, the four … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell site location information, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

E.D.N.Y.: iCloud SW was particular to time and offenses

“The Court finds both the iCloud and Midwood Lumber Warrants were sufficiently particularized and tethered to the Affidavits’ probable cause showings, thereby meeting the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.” … “[I]he iCloud Warrant identifies the property to be searched as “information associated … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Forfeiture, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: iCloud SW was particular to time and offenses

D.Nev.: Affidavit accompanying cell phone SW provided particularity

If the affidavit accompanies the warrant it can cure particularity problems. Here it did. United States v. King, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103299 (D. Nev. June 11, 2024).* Plaintiff stated a claim for arrest without probable cause by the defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Affidavit accompanying cell phone SW provided particularity