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 warrant. It surfaced 14 days later in discovery. Nevertheless, the good faith exception is found to apply. The proof is in the pudding: where did they actually search? United States v. Gilbert, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130750 (D. Conn. July 28, 2023):

Even if the warrant for the residence was arguably overbroad because it may have authorized the seizure and search of cell phones other than those belonging to Gilbert, see supra pp. 19-21, Gilbert submits no evidence indicating that the search team went beyond the scope of probable cause by actually seizing phones that belonged to anyone other than Gilbert. Indeed, the Government avers that other phones that were found during the search of Gilbert’s residence were not seized because they did not appear to relate to or belong to Gilbert. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 16. Moreover, the Government attested at oral argument that, had a seized phone later been discovered to not belong to Gilbert, such a phone would have been immediately returned to the correct owner. See March 16, 2023 Oral Arg. Tr. at 6:1-20.