particularity requirement in Washington

2022The trial court did not err by concluding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. 3) Warrant Particularity Wamba contends that the warrant for the seizure of his phone lacked particularity because the description in the warrant allowed for an overbroad search of the cell phone data without limitations. “ ‘The [F]ourth [A]mendment to the United States Constitution requires that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized’ ”, but the particularity requirement can be “ ‘met if the substance to be seized is described with re

2022The trial court did not err by concluding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. 3) Warrant Particularity Wamba contends that the warrant for the seizure of his phone lacked particularity because the description in the warrant allowed for an overbroad search of the cell phone data without limitations. “ ‘The [F]ourth [A]mendment to the United States Constitution requires that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized’ ”, but the particularity requirement can be “ ‘met if the substance to be seized is described with re

2021The warrant failed to describe any particular items to be seized and, therefore, it failed to guide the executing officer’s discretion and to inform the person subject to the search what items could be seized. 3 We recognize that “[a] warrant can be ‘overbroad’ either because it fails to describe with particularity items for which probable cause exists, or because it describes, particularly or otherwise, items for which probable cause does not exist.” State v. Maddox, 116 Wn.

2014State v. Maddox, 116 Wn.

2014The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search warrant describe with particularity the things to be seized.2 The purpose of this particularity requirement is "to limit the executing officer's discretion" and "to inform the person subject to the search what items the officer may seize."3 The degree of specificity required necessarily varies "according to the circumstances and the type of items involved."4 We review de novo whether a search warrant contains a sufficiently particularized description to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, but we construe the language "in a commonsense, practical manner, ra

2014To meet the particularity requirement " a search warrant must be sufficiently definite so that the officer executing the warrant can identify the property sought with reasonable certainty." State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 692 , 940 P. 2d 1239 ( 1997).

2014The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search warrant describe with particularity the things to be seized.2 The purpose of this particularity requirement is "to limit the executing officer's discretion" and "to inform the person subject to the search what items the officer may seize."3 The degree of specificity required necessarily varies "according to the circumstances and the type of items involved."4 We review de novo whether a search warrant contains a sufficiently particularized description to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, but we construe the language "in a commonsense, practical manner, ra

2014To meet the particularity requirement " a search warrant must be sufficiently definite so that the officer executing the warrant can identify the property sought with reasonable certainty." State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 692 , 940 P. 2d 1239 ( 1997).

2018The other purpose of the particularity requirement is to eliminate "the danger of unlimited discretion in the executing officer's determination of what to seize" and to prevent the issuance of a warrant "on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact." Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 546 (citing United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1026 (6th Cir. 1991); State v. Gronlund, 356 N.W.2d 144, 146 (N.D. 1984)), 548. 6 McKee concedes there was probable cause to support issuing a warrant for sexual exploitation of a minor but asserts nothing in the Affidavit supported probable cause for dealing in the depictio

1992United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1026 (6th Cir.), certs. denied, _ U.S. _, 116 L.

2007"The underlying measure of adequacy in the description is whether given the specificity in the warrant, a violation of personal rights is likely." United States v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir.1976). ¶ 14 The search warrant at issue authorized seizure of any evidence supporting the suspected criminal activity of "Narcotics/Child Sex." Pl.'s Ex.

2007“The underlying measure of adequacy in the description is whether given the specificity in the warrant, a violation of personal rights is likely.” United States v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir. 1976). ¶14 The search warrant at issue authorized seizure of any evidence supporting the suspected criminal activity of “Narcotics/Child Sex.” Pl.’s Ex.

2018The particularity requirement in such cases must be "accorded the most scrupulous exactitude." Stanford, 379 U.S. at 485 .

2018Per Stanford, the particularity requirement “is to be accorded the most scrupulous exactitude when the ‘things’ are books, and the basis for their seizure is the ideas which they contain.” 379 U.S. at 485 .

2020The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement provides important protection against governmental invasion of privacy because it “makes general searches . . . impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 , 48 S. Ct. 74 , 72 L.

2020The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement provides important protection against governmental invasion of privacy because it “makes general searches . . . impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 , 48 S. Ct. 74 , 72 L.

2024“Warrants for materials protected by the First Amendment require a heightened degree of particularity.” Besola, 184 Wn.2d at 611 .

2018In such cases, the particularity requirement must be ‘accorded the most scrupulous exactitude.’” Besola, 184 Wn.2d at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 548 ).

2024The particularity requirement protects individuals from general searches and “the danger of unlimited discretion in the executing officer’s determination of what to seize.” Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 546 ; see also State v. Askham, 120 Wn.

2021“The purpose of the particularity requirement is to prevent the State from engaging in unrestricted ‘exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings’ for any evidence of any crime.” State v. Askham, 120 Wn.

2021Compare United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1032-33 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that an authorization to seize any “‘evidence of crime’” does not satisfy the particularity requirement) with Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-81 , 96 S. Ct. 2737 , 49 L.

2021Compare United States v. Stefonek, 179 F.3d 1030, 1032-33 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that an authorization to seize any “‘evidence of crime’” does not satisfy the particularity requirement) with Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-81 , 96 S. Ct. 2737 , 49 L.

2018The other purpose of the particularity requirement is to eliminate "the danger of unlimited discretion in the executing officer's determination of what to seize" and to prevent the issuance of a warrant "on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact." Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 546 (citing United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1026 (6th Cir. 1991); State v. Gronlund, 356 N.W.2d 144, 146 (N.D. 1984)), 548. 6 McKee concedes there was probable cause to support issuing a warrant for sexual exploitation of a minor but asserts nothing in the Affidavit supported probable cause for dealing in the depictio

2018The particularity requirement prevents general searches, seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption that they fall within the issuing magistrate's authorization, and the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact. ¶ 21 Warrants " 'must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized.' " Perrone, 119 Wash.2d at 546 , 834 P.2d 611 (quoting United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730 , 733 (5th Cir. 1981) ).

2018Warrants that describe generic categories of items are not invalid "if a more precise description of the items subject to seizure is not possible" and "a more particular description of the items to be seized is not available at the time the warrant issues." Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 963 ; Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 547 . 11 RCW 9.68A.040 provides, in pertinent part: Sexual exploitation of a minor—Elements of crime—Penalty. (1) A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor if the person: (a) Compels a minor by threat or force to engage in sexually explicit conduct, knowing that such conduct will

2018Because the Affidavit was not attached or incorporated by reference, our determination of the particularity requirement is limited 15 No. 73947-6-1/16 to the warrant.12 We consider"'whether the warrant sets out objective standards by which executing officers can differentiate items subject to seizure from those which are not.'" Mann, 389 F.3d at 878 (quoting Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 963 ).

1997An overbroad warrant may be cured for the purposes of meeting the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment where the affidavit and the search warrant are physically attached, and the warrant expressly refers to the affidavit and incorporates it with "suitable words of reference.” Riley, 121 Wn.2d at 29 ; State v. Kelley, 52 Wn.

1997An overbroad warrant may be cured for the purposes of meeting the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment where the affidavit and the search warrant are physically attached, and the warrant expressly refers to the affidavit and incorporates it with "suitable words of reference." Riley, 121 Wash.2d at 29 , 846 P.2d 1365 ; State v. Kelley, 52 Wash.App. 581, 585 , 762 P.2d 20 (1988).