Cal.: Partial overbreadth can lead to suppression in egregious cases with flagrant constitutional violations, but this isn’t one

While partial overbreadth can lead to suppression of everything seized in an egregious case with flagrant misconduct, this isn’t one: “And as in Bradford and Kraft, we conclude that the facts here do not warrant this extreme remedy.” “According to defendant, Detective Nash applied for a narrow, particularized warrant — while withholding his true ‘investigative purpose’ and his subjective intent to seek a broad array of documents and evidence relating to the Stinemans’ murder while executing the warrants. We are not persuaded that the officers converted the search into “‘”a general, exploratory rummaging”‘” … in executing the two search warrants at issue here.” People v. Helzer, 2024 Cal. LEXIS 302 (Jan. 22, 2024).

Defendant had no standing to contest the search of a cell phone that belonged to somebody else who actually consented to its search. United States v. Edouard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233609 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10163 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 20, 2023).*

Nexus and probable cause was shown for a warrant for defendant’s hotel room based on the officer’s suspicion he was already involved in drugs and then receiving shipment of three boxes there. Defendant had three drug priors, and a drug dog alerted at the door to his hotel room. United States v. Ramirez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233567 (D. Minn. Nov. 28, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Overbreadth, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.