The application for the search warrant listed the statutes of offenses under investigation, but the search warrant did not. The warrant, however, incorporated the application, so the officers knew what they were searching for. \u201cThe search warrant here does not authorize the \u2018general rummaging\u2019 the court criticized in Cassady. Instead, the attachments to the search warrant specify the electronic devices to be searched, along with their serial numbers if available. The search warrant and its attachments also specify the types of evidence to be seized, specifically, evidence related to child pornography and kidnapping. In twelve of the fifteen paragraphs listed in Attachment B \u2018List of Items to Be Seized\u2019 there is a specific reference to either child pornography or to kidnapping.\u201d United States v. Vafeades, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129437 (D.Utah September 25, 2015).<\/p>\n
A state search warrant application wasn\u2019t filed until after hours, and that was still valid because many search warrants are sought after hours. It thus did not violate due process. [Besides, where\u2019s the prejudice in an after hours filing? What about Virginia v. Moore that state law violations are irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment?] United States v. Gater, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128207 (E.D. Mo. September 10, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127127 (E.D. Mo., September 23, 2015).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The application for the search warrant listed the statutes of offenses under investigation, but the search warrant did not. The warrant, however, incorporated the application, so the officers knew what they were searching for. \u201cThe search warrant here does not … Continue reading