examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ferrara (3×) also: Cited "see" Dalia, 441 U.S. at 257, 99 S.Ct. at 1693 (“[I]t is generally left to the discretion of the executing officers to determine the details of how best to proceed with the performance of a search authorized by a warrant—subject of course to the general Fourth Amendment protection ‘against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ ”) (footnote omitted).

cited Cited "see" United States v. Bianco See United States v. Volpe, 430 F.Supp. 931, 945 (D.Conn.1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 1372 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 2049 , 60 L.Ed.2d 658 (1979). (2) Particularity.

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bianco See United States v. Volpe, 430 F.Supp. 931, 945 (D.Conn.1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 1372 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 2049 , 60 L.Ed.2d 658 (1979). 82 (2) Particularity. 83 The defendants contend that "[t]he 1986 amendment to Title III, no matter how it is read does away with the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power." U.S. Const. Amend.

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Johnson (2×) See 441 U. S. 930 (1979).