CT: “All data” warrant was unreasonable, but harmless on all the facts

The warrant for “all data” on defendant’s cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, even though it was limited to two weeks before the murder. Yet, the state’s case was so strong, the cell phone data was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Correa, 2025 Conn. LEXIS 185 (Sep. 16, 2025).

In a state where growing marijuana can be legal, an illegal grow warrant was invalid for not excluding all the ways legal marijuana and hemp could be grown. State v. Chixu Huang, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1821 (Sep. 16, 2025) (unpublished).*

Warrants are for places, not necessarily people, and the nexus requirement is to the place. “Mr. Rebollar-Gonzalez’s attempts to dissociate himself from criminal activity is unavailing, and therefore his own actions contribute to a finding that probable cause existed to search the Old Hudson Road apartment. Even if the search warrant application needed to show probable cause to suspect that Mr. Rebollar himself had committed a crime, it does so. …” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180867 (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Overbreadth, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.