MA: SW for “controlled substances” without specifying anything in particular was overbroad

Search warrant for “controlled substances” without specifying anything in particular, including what the controlled buy allegedly was, was overbroad. In addition, the warrant wasn’t present at the search, so it can’t help limit the search [which seems kind of a circular argument here since it didn’t specify either]. Commonwealth v. Padilla, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 157 (Dec. 20, 2024).

The inventory search here was unreasonable, but the evidence was admissible because of inevitable discovery. It would have been found anyway. People v. Mitchell, 2024 NY Slip Op 51715(U) (Co. Ct. Albany Co. Nov. 19, 2024).*

Plaintiff sued under § 1983 claiming the search in his pending state case was illegal. Court abstains. Dicostanzo v. City of Billings Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229935 (D. Mont. Dec. 19, 2024).*

A group strip search in prison was reasonable. Plummer v. Belford, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230042 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Overbreadth, Particularity, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.