Category Archives: Particularity

CA6: SW’s minor error in naming place to be searched did not entitle ptf to relief; qualified immunity applies

A minor error in the address of the place to be searched could be overlooked because only the right place was searched. There is still qualified immunity. Neal El v. Valasek, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30000 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Nexus, Particularity, Pretext, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA6: SW’s minor error in naming place to be searched did not entitle ptf to relief; qualified immunity applies

WV: A summons is not a 4A seizure

Claiming plaintiff was “forced to turn himself in” on a summons didn’t state a claim for a Fourth Amendment seizure. State ex rel. Atty.-Gen. v. Ballard, 2023 W. Va. LEXIS 473 (Nov. 9, 2023). “The warrant in this case listed … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on WV: A summons is not a 4A seizure

AR: Probation search waiver can be required in suspended sentences, too

The state probation search waiver statute doesn’t refer to suspended sentences, but the court has the power to impose it there, too, even without a supervision requirement. Johnson v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 509 (Nov. 8, 2023). The dog sniff … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on AR: Probation search waiver can be required in suspended sentences, too

M.D.Pa.: Police continually banging on def’s door to come out was seizure; no exigency applies; suppressed

Defendant fled from the police in his car in a highspeed chase. They went to his house and came on to defendant’s curtilage, his porch, and shined flashlights through the windows. This was a search on a constitutionally protected area. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Police continually banging on def’s door to come out was seizure; no exigency applies; suppressed

E.D.Wis.: Text and Facebook messages about crime justified warrant for them

In a health care fraud case, the government knew that messages about the crime were exchanged by text and Facebook, and that was sufficient to get a search warrant for them. In any event, the good faith exception applied. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Text and Facebook messages about crime justified warrant for them

CO: REP in Google search history which also implicates freedom of expression

“First, the court concludes that, under the Colorado Constitution, the defendant has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even when revealed only in connection with his IP address and not his name and that, under both … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CO: REP in Google search history which also implicates freedom of expression

CA9: SW was wholesale overbroad, and QI not properly preserved for appeal

“The Second Search Warrant authorized, among other things, without any limitation as to time, the seizure of a vast array of ‘[f]inancial information’ related to Mr. Moore and ‘associated businesses’ that constitute evidence of a crime and all electronics that … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: SW was wholesale overbroad, and QI not properly preserved for appeal

TN: Typo of street number of location of car to be searched could be overlooked when the car was still parked

Defendant was a suspect in a vehicular homicide. Her car with pedestrian damage was found parked in the driveway of her house at 207 Port Drive in Hamilton County. There was a typo on the street number despite the warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: Typo of street number of location of car to be searched could be overlooked when the car was still parked

NY4: No limitation in cell phone search was included, and it was thus not particular

The cell phone warrant sought all information on it about a 48 hour period without limitation, and it was vague and overbroad. “The warrant contained no language incorporating any other documents or facts. Significantly, the search of the phone was … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on NY4: No limitation in cell phone search was included, and it was thus not particular

D.Conn.: Apparent overbreadth in SW cured by GFE on how it was executed and on what

The search warrant didn’t specify the crime under investigation and that was a problem for particularity. That could have been cured by the affidavit being attached to the warrant at execution but it wasn’t. It was referred to in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Apparent overbreadth in SW cured by GFE on how it was executed and on what

D.D.C.: Second thoughts about unobjected to Facebook posts in 1/6 trial doesn’t mean govt violated particularity

1/6 defendants didn’t object to Facebook materials obtained by search warrant. In their motion for new trial they’re concerned with one entry in 14,000 pages that the government must have exceeded the warrant. “Even if these underdeveloped allegations held water, … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Second thoughts about unobjected to Facebook posts in 1/6 trial doesn’t mean govt violated particularity

N.D.Ohio: Photo of premises in SW showed detached garage, and it was included because on curtilage

The warrant was particular when it showed a picture of the premises with the address. The photograph showed the detached garage on the curtilage. That was covered by the warrant, too. When the government raised standing in response to defendant’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Photo of premises in SW showed detached garage, and it was included because on curtilage

E.D.Mich.: SW for entire iCloud account limited by crime under investigation was particular

The fact the CI related information that was publicly known doesn’t support the story. “Although the Court concludes that the Apple/iCloud warrant was not supported by probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” The case was a … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: SW for entire iCloud account limited by crime under investigation was particular

Cal.2: Geofence warrant issued before any case law showed PC, particularly, and good faith

Geofence warrant issued in 2019 before there were any reported cases satisfied probable cause, particularity, and the good faith exception. Price v. Superior Court, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 505 (2d Dist. July 3, 2023):

Posted in geofence, Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on Cal.2: Geofence warrant issued before any case law showed PC, particularly, and good faith

D.Mont.: Nervousness alone not enough to extend stop

Defendant’s stop was unreasonably extended without reasonable suspicion. A DL and EPIC check on both driver and passenger came up clean, and the stop should have ended then. Nervousness alone wasn’t enough. United States v. Funk, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Nervousness alone not enough to extend stop

MI: Terry justified this search and seizure, not plain feel

The court of appeals erred in not applying Terry to this frisk inside defendant’s coat, instead relying on plain feel. Remanded. People v. Turner, 2023 Mich. LEXIS 937 (June 21, 2023). “Here, the warrant specifically identified the offenses for which … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MI: Terry justified this search and seizure, not plain feel

DE: SW for “trace evidence” was particular; we know what that means

The search warrant might appear general, but it was limited by the things to be searched for. The reference to “trace evidence including but not limited to blood, hair, fibers, fluids, and fingerprints” did not make it unparticular. Trace evidence … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on DE: SW for “trace evidence” was particular; we know what that means

RI: Exigency of hot pursuit in a homicide case made pinging cell phone reasonable

Despite Carpenter saying it is limited to historical CSLI, this court concludes there is no meaningful difference between real-time and historical CSLI under Carpenter. Exigency, however, was real. The police were in hot pursuit seeking to question defendant for a … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Hot pursuit, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on RI: Exigency of hot pursuit in a homicide case made pinging cell phone reasonable

E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

The order to a motorist to lower his window is not a search, despite the fact the windows were heavily tinted and it made the interior more visible. Two pounds of cannabis on the car seat was probable cause for … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Search | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment complaint that attorney-client communications in jail were overheard does not survive summary judgment. He was a mere eight feet from the jailer who could clearly overhear everything. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer