23 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Lee v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1289, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). 2017Lee v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1289, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dyegreen2 sentences2026Dost v. State, 812 N.E.2d 232, 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that with respect to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, “[t]he test is for practical accuracy, and common sense should prevail over hypertechnicality”) (quoting State v. Dye, 826 P.2d 500, 506 (Kan. 1992)). 2004See Gitcho and Dye, supra. Under the cireumstances facing us here, we agree with the Kansas supreme court that when determining a warrant's compliance with the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, "[the test is for practical accuracy,' and common sense should prevail over hypertechnicality" Dye, 826 P2d at 506 . | 2 | 2 |
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co.green2 sentences2015Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir.2011). 2015Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir. 2011). | 2 | 2 |
Membres v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The purpose of the particularity requirement is to assure that law enforcement officers “do not have ‘unbridled discretion’ to rummage through people’s belongings.” Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265, 276 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Warren v. State, 760 N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. 2002)). 2019Moreover, to satisfy the particularity requirement, it is permissible if a warrant incorporates by reference certain supporting documents-such as the probable cause affidavit-that collectively "serv[e] to identify the scope of ... items that could properly be seized." Membres v. State , 889 N.E.2d 265 , 276 (Ind. 2008). [39] After re-seizing Price's cellphone, Detective Richhart instructed another officer, Detective Larry Sanders (Detective Sanders) to obtain a warrant. | 1 | 3 |
In Re Wthr-Tvgreen2 sentences2015In In re WTHR, the Court wrote: Although described as the particularity requirement, in reality this test also smuggled in the commonsensical elements of a showing that the information is not readily available elsewhere (the "degree of discovery of other items of information” in Dillard) and that the party seeking it is not engaged in a fishing expedition with no focused idea of the size, species, or edibility of the fish. 693 N.E.2d at 7 ; see also Crawford v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1165, 1168 (Ind.2011) (“In general, the particularity requirement demands something more precise than give me everyt 2011Id. at 9 . | 1 | 3 |
Dost v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Dost v. State, 812 N.E.2d 232, 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that with respect to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, “[t]he test is for practical accuracy, and common sense should prevail over hypertechnicality”) (quoting State v. Dye, 826 P.2d 500, 506 (Kan. 1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Warren v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The purpose of the particularity requirement is to assure that law enforcement officers “do not have ‘unbridled discretion’ to rummage through people’s belongings.” Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265, 276 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Warren v. State, 760 N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Shawn Carter v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2024According to the Fourth Amendment, search warrants must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” “Although the warrant must describe ‘with some specificity’ where officers are to search and what they are to seize, there is no requirement that there be an exact description.” Carter, 105 N.E.3d at 1129 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foygreen1 sentence2023State v. Foy, 862 N.E.2d 1219, 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Meghan E. Price v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Price v. State, 119 N.E.3d 212, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (cleaned up), trans. denied. [37] Albrecht argues that Search Warrant 857 did not meet the particularity requirement because it did “not contain language specifying what type of content and data” that the police could search within Albrecht’s hard drive and cell phone. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Stategreen1 sentence2015In In re WTHR, the Court wrote: Although described as the particularity requirement, in reality this test also smuggled in the commonsensical elements of a showing that the information is not readily available elsewhere (the "degree of discovery of other items of information” in Dillard) and that the party seeking it is not engaged in a fishing expedition with no focused idea of the size, species, or edibility of the fish. 693 N.E.2d at 7 ; see also Crawford v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1165, 1168 (Ind.2011) (“In general, the particularity requirement demands something more precise than give me everyt | 1 | 1 |
Terre Haute Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Truebloodgreen1 sentence2011But “[o]ur standard of review in discovery matters is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, 600 N.E.2d 1358, 1362 (Ind.1992) (citing Dogal v. Cruse, 267 Ind. 83, 88-89 , 368 N.E.2d 235, 238 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
Logal v. Crusegreen2 sentences2011But “[o]ur standard of review in discovery matters is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, 600 N.E.2d 1358, 1362 (Ind.1992) (citing Dogal v. Cruse, 267 Ind. 83, 88-89 , 368 N.E.2d 235, 238 (1977)). 2011But “[o]ur standard of review in discovery matters is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, 600 N.E.2d 1358, 1362 (Ind.1992) (citing Dogal v. Cruse, 267 Ind. 83, 88-89 , 368 N.E.2d 235, 238 (1977)). | 1 | 1 |
Dillard v. Stategreen2 sentences2011We recognize that the particularity requirement is not to be “construed strictly against the defendant but should be administered so as to maximize pretrial discovery and the benefits to the judicial system which flow therefrom.” Dillard, 257 Ind. at 291 , 274 N.E.2d at 392 (citation omitted). 2011We recognize that the particularity requirement is not to be “construed strictly against the defendant but should be administered so as to maximize pretrial discovery and the benefits to the judicial system which flow therefrom.” Dillard, 257 Ind. at 291 , 274 N.E.2d at 392 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hester v. Stategreen1 sentence2009In Hester v. State, this Court held that the following language used in the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement: "Any and all property which may have been the subject of Theft or Burglary occurring in Union Township, Johnson County, Indiana from the residences of ..." 551 N.E.2d 1187, 1190 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Green v. State, 676 N.E.2d 755, 757 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), tra ns. denied, 683 N.E.2d 589 (Ind.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Garrison
green
2 sentences2018This particularity requirement "ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit." Maryland v. Garrison , 480 U.S. 79 , 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013 , 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). 2018This particularity requirement "ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit." Maryland v. Garrison , 480 U.S. 79 , 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013 , 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). | 2 | 1993–2018 |
United States v. Edward Bishop
green
1 sentence2024The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed whether a warrant to search a cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement in United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fisher v. United States
green
2 sentences2018So long as the State already knows with reasonable particularity the documents or evidence it seeks, the *433 surrender of the evidence "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information." Fisher , 425 U.S. at 411 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 . 2018So long as the State already knows with reasonable particularity the documents or evidence it seeks, the *433 surrender of the evidence "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information." Fisher , 425 U.S. at 411 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences2018Indeed, the requirement aims to prevent "a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). [20] Although the warrant must describe "with some specificity" where officers are to search and what they are to seize, "there is no requirement that there be an exact description." Overstreet v. State , 783 N.E.2d 1140 , 1158 (Ind. 2003). 2018Indeed, the requirement aims to prevent "a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). [20] Although the warrant must describe "with some specificity" where officers are to search and what they are to seize, "there is no requirement that there be an exact description." Overstreet v. State , 783 N.E.2d 1140 , 1158 (Ind. 2003). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Overstreet v. State
green
1 sentence2018Indeed, the requirement aims to prevent "a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). [20] Although the warrant must describe "with some specificity" where officers are to search and what they are to seize, "there is no requirement that there be an exact description." Overstreet v. State , 783 N.E.2d 1140 , 1158 (Ind. 2003). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Glen Shoffner, Richard Henry Fiedler, and Leonard Michael Stange, Defendants
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 630 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Atwell
green
1 sentence2007U.S. v. Atwell, 289 F.Supp.2d 629 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Layman v. State
green
1 sentence1984Layman v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 259 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.