Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Lee Cook and Jackie B. Kirkgreen2 sentences2015As this court has explained, “The purposes of the search warrant particularity requirement are the prevention of general searches, prevention of the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption that they fall within the issuing magistrate’s authorization, and prevention of the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact.” Perrone, 119 Wn.2d at 545 . ¶10 Warrants “ ‘must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized.’ ” Id. at 546 (quoting United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 1981)). 2015Warrants "'must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized."' !d. at 546 (quoting United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 1981)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Alexander Robert Holzman, United States of America v. James Walshgreen1 sentence1997Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-80 , 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2748 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976); United States v. Holzman, 871 F.2d 1496, 1508 (9th Cir.1989); State v. Perrone, 119 Wash.2d 538, 545 , 834 P.2d 611 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perrone
green
2 sentences2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption 2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption | 6 | 1997–2018 |
Marron v. United States
green
2 sentences2018“The purposes of the search warrant particularity requirement are the prevention of general searches, prevention of the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption that they fall within the issuing magistrate’s authorization, and prevention of the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact.” State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 545 , 834 P.2d 611 (1992) (citing, among other authority, Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 , 48 S. Ct. 74 , 72 L. 2018“The purposes of the search warrant particularity requirement are the prevention of general searches, prevention of the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption that they fall within the issuing magistrate’s authorization, and prevention of the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact.” State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 545 , 834 P.2d 611 (1992) (citing, among other authority, Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 , 48 S. Ct. 74 , 72 L. | 2 | 1992–2018 |
Andresen v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1997Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-80 , 96 S. Ct. 2737 , 49 L. 1997Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 479-80 , 96 S. Ct. 2737 , 49 L. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2018State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 29 , 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). 2018State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 29 , 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Reep
neutral
1 sentence2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Luther
green
1 sentence2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Luther
green
1 sentence2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Reep
green
1 sentence2018But he does not provide any argument for why Washington should abandon the rule. -7- No. 74662-6-1/ 8 Particularity Next, Martinez contends that the warrant issued in Washington allowing the WSP to search his laptop computers and hard drives was overbroad.13 The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The search warrant particularity requirement helps prevent general searches, the seizure of objects on the mistaken assumption | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.