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 when considered in context. Unlike the search warrants in the cases cited by Amiri, any facial overbreadth is cured by the preambulatory statement before the list of items to be seized.” United States v. Amiri, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143111 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144346 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024).*

Defendant was stopped based in part on a CI’s tip he was involved in drugs. The drug dog was there almost immediately, and that didn’t contribute to the stop. United States v. Myers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142920 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 12, 2024).*

2254 petitioner’s Franks ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he never shows that the claim had any chance of success. George v. Rewerts, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142655 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.