N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

“That said, specificity is ‘relative,’ and a warrant ‘need not be more specific than knowledge allows.’ United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, law enforcement is required to particularize a warrant only to the extent it is reasonably able to do so based on the facts it knows at the time it obtains the warrant. See id. Officers’ knowledge about the evidence they are looking for and where it may be found on a cell phone is thus significant in determining whether a warrant is sufficiently particularized. See id.; see also Socha, 107 F.4th at 709-10.” United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116354 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2025).

2254 petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his search and seizure claim, and the state court’s holding he didn’t timely file and would have lost anyway was his Stone opportunity. Flook v. Haynes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116709 (E.D. Wash. June 18, 2025).*

The officers’ use of nondeadly force against an apparent mentally ill plaintiff who was flailing and resisting arrest was reasonable under established precedent. Helms v. Boyd Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15112 (6th Cir. June 17, 2025).*

Defendant shows no connection to the package he seeks to suppress. “None of the facts attested to in Sherman’s affidavit connect the package to him. It was not addressed to him, and the address to which it was sent was associated with a Rebeca Ruiz, not Edmundo Ruiz, Jr. The return address also did not bear his name, and it was associated with several commercial properties, not Edmundo Ruiz, Jr.” United States v. Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116091 (N.D. Ohio June 18, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.