An apparent cut and paste error led to the officer pasting the place to be searched into the things to be seized section of the warrant looking for clothing from a robbery. The affidavit included pages of photographs of the things to potentially to be seized. \u201cThe inclusion of the address in the format of the search warrant as the item to be searched for can best be described as a minor, unintentional drafting oversight unnoticed by either the drafting officer or the issuing judge. See Hamilton, 591 F.3d at 1029.\u201d Somewhere, however, there also was a potential list of things to be seized, and this is all enough to overcome the exclusionary rule. United States v. Davis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064 (D.Neb. March 4, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defendant understood that he was consenting to a complete search of his iPhone both orally and in writing. United States v. Grant, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49666 (N.D.Ala. March 10, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An apparent cut and paste error led to the officer pasting the place to be searched into the things to be seized section of the warrant looking for clothing from a robbery. The affidavit included pages of photographs of the … Continue reading