S.D.N.Y.: Warrant overbreadth claim fails because of PC and GFE

“Suppression of digital photographs, videos and bank records that fell outside the April 1, 2019 through October 25, 2019 timeframe seized from the Subject Device is not warranted, as the December 2020 Warrant was sufficiently particularized and not overbroad.” On the totality of the circumstances: “The information in the December 2020 Warrant’s affidavit provides a substantial basis for the magistrate judge to conclude that probable cause existed with respect to photographic, video, and financial-record evidence of the Subject Offenses, irrespective of timeframe. For example, the affiant states that based on his ‘training and experience’ he knows that ‘individuals who engage in narcotics trafficking store records relating to their illegal activity’ including ‘stored photographs and other data regarding narcotics and/or illegal firearm possession.’ (See Mot., Ex. G at 6.) Under a ‘practical, common-sense’ probable cause determination, this Court is persuaded that the Subject Device could contain photographic, video, or financial-record evidence relating to the Subject Offenses that fall outside of the timeframe imposed on other categories of information.” Finally, the actual probable cause question doesn’t even have to be decided because the good faith exception applies. United States v. Rosario, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230459 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021).

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.