Search warrant was overbroad as to financial records for a lack of a time frame to be seized, but not as to other things. United States v. Tomkins, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51059 (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2009):<\/p>\n
The Court finds that the search warrants for defendant’s home and storage units were overbroad in one limited respect: they failed to impose a time limitation for the financial records, postal receipts, and telecommunications records to be seized. Although the government argues that time limitations as to the telecommunications records are implied by the supporting affidavits to be the time period relevant to the complaint, there is no evidence that the affidavits were incorporated into, or attached to, the warrants. The Court also finds unpersuasive the government’s argument that the time period was limited as a practical matter because people typically do not retain telephone records for extended periods of time. Since the government could have limited its request for these categories of items to a period of time more closely related to the events at issue in this case, the failure to do so rendered the warrants overbroad as to those categories.<\/p>\n
The Court finds that the remainder of the warrants satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, however, and that the lack of particularity discussed above did not transform the warrants into impermissible general warrants. The lists attached to the warrants are over three single-spaced pages long, and identify numerous detailed categories of evidence. These warrants were supported by lengthy and thorough affidavits that incorporated the criminal complaint. The items listed in the warrants clearly related to the matters detailed in the affidavit; for example, the broad category of financial documents sought could show a financial motive for defendant’s crimes, while defendant’s cellular telephone records could show defendant’s general location at the times calls were made. The categories to which defendant objects are properly described with generic language, since given the broad scope of defendant’s alleged scheme, it was not possible to particularize these items in greater detail, other than to limit the financial and telecommunications records and postal receipts by time period.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s consent to search his vehicle in this capital murder case was shown to be voluntary. Defendant\u2019s stipulation to admit evidence at trial that had been objected to and heard pretrial preserved the issue for appeal, but it would have been better to have objected again. Goff v. State<\/a>, 14 So. 3d 625 (Miss. 2009).*<\/p>\n
Police surveillance sufficiently corroborated an anonymous tip that it could be relied upon by the police. State v. Garcia<\/a>, 197 N.C. App. 522, 677 S.E.2d 555 (2009).*<\/p>\n
Search of defendant\u2019s cell phone four hours after his arrest was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it only produced evidence of his intent to deliver, not actual contraband, and the defendant never contested intent to deliver. Cisneros v. State<\/a>, 290 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.\u2014Houston (14th Dist.) 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading