A particularity clause for evidence of ATV thefts was sufficiently particular. \u201cThe universe of responsive items reasonably finds a limit in the subject matter of the designated crime, which in this case presents a logical and discernible limit and thus confines officer discretion. See, e.g., Sanders v. Parrish, 141 F. App’x 412, 417 (6th Cir. 2005) (referencing materials in the search warrant affidavit to remedy a deficient description of items to be seized).\u201d United States v. Taylor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81617 (E.D. Ky. July 26, 2010) (R&R), adopted United States v. Taylor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81769 (E.D. Ky. August 11, 2010) (\u201cWhile multiple items could fall within the warrant\u2019s terms, this by no means dooms the warrant\u2019s particularity. … Other courts have held that warrants with language similar to the warrant issued in this case are sufficiently particularized.\u201d).*<\/p>\n
\u201cJames Cameron moves to suppress evidence obtained by Yahoo! during its search of photo albums located on the Yahoo! Network. The Court rejects the Defendant’s contention that in searching for and reporting to the Government that one of its customers was committing a crime against children, Yahoo! acted as an agent of the Government for Fourth Amendment purposes.\u201d Yahoo! was acting as a citizen informant in turning the evidence over to the government. United States v. Cameron, 729 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Me. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading