Overbreadth/Staleness
Category > Overbreadth/Staleness
Updated 3/4/2024Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850
The court reasonably found the information in the affidavit was stale where the incident took place 82 days before the warrant was issued and the good faith exception did not apply.The officer preparing the search warrant affidavit described a June 14th drug transaction. However, the warrant was not issued until September 4th (82 days later.) The trial court reasonably found the information was stale and there was no current information to establish probable cause. Moreover, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply since wit was not objectively reasonable for the police to believe the search is valid where there was a long unexplained delay between the drug incident mentioned in the affidavit and the issuance of the warrant.id: 21162
Good faith exception did not apply where officer should have known the 52 day-old information in his affidavit was stale and did not support probable cause.A police officer bought drugs from a defendant, then waited 52 days before seeking a warrant to search two residences where defendant allegedly lived. The trial court found the warrant was based on stale information but denied suppression after finding the officer executed the warrant in good faith. However, the good faith doctrine did not apply since the officer who both sought and executed the warrant, should have known the stale information contained in the affidavit lacked the necessary indicia of probable cause.id: 17503
Updated 2/26/2024There was probable cause for the warrant, and the information regarding child porn seen on defendant’s computer two years earlier was not stale in light of other observations and the affiant’s experience. Defendant challenged a search warrant arguing probable cause was lacking because it was based on stale information. A witness testified that he saw pornographic files on defendant’s computer two years earlier. However, that information was supplemented by more recent viewings by another witness, and was further supported by the affiant who was an expert in computer forensics. The affidavit established probable cause to support the warrant.id: 26403
Updated 2/1/2024Geofence warrant did not violate the probable cause or particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment or CalECPA.A geofence warrant, or “reverse location warrant” draws a virtual geographic fence around the location of a crime for a specified time and allows police to identify suspects by obtaining location data and identifying information associated with electronic devices. The warrant here satisfied the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment and was not overbroad as it was narrowly drawn in scope and time period to capture the location data of only suspects and witnesses, and to minimize the possibility of the police, obtaining information of uninvolved individuals. The good faith exception also applied to preclude suppression of the evidence obtained. Finally, CalECPA did not require suppression of the evidence despite the state’s violation of CalECPA’s notice requirements.id: 27906
Evidence that defendant was obsessed with the victim’s husband at the time of the killing over 20 years earlier was not stale and justified the search of her new home and computer. Defendant argued the search warrants that were issued more than 20 years after the killing were necessarily based on stale information. However, the information showing defendant’s obsession with the victim’s husband was not stale and it was probable that she would retain evidence of her relationship given the strong feelings. That she had moved homes did not matter as people wouldn’t normally throw out such personal items. The computer search was proper even if she didn’t own the computers earlier because she could easily have transferred the photographs and other information to her current computer.id: 24193
Information in search warrant affidavit was not stale as even though defendant had not been connected to the improper use of the victim’s identity in a year, someone continued to use the identity and it was fair to connect it to him. Defendant was charged with several offenses including identity theft. He argued the information in the search warrant affidavit was stale and therefore did not supply probable cause. The detective filed the affidavit in support of the warrant on September 20th, 2004, and defendant noted the last time he was connected to the victim’s identity was in November of 2003. However, the affidavit showed someone had used the victim’s identity within the last two months and it was reasonable to connect it to him given his prior illegal use of the identity.id: 23232
Warrant authorizing a search for dominion and control evidence allowed searching officers to read handwritten notes found on the floor following the shooting of four children in the house.Police searched defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant and ultimately read handwritten notes lying on the floor next to defendant’s bed. Defendant argued the warrant was overly broad if it justified the reading of these notes to establish defendant’s dominion and control of the house as the notes were not in envelopes but just the original writings lying on the floor. However, the language in the warrant that authorized a search for dominion and control evidence was sufficiently particularized and was justified by the fact that multiple murders had been committed in the house.id: 22544
Search warrant affidavit was not based on stale information where there was evidence of ongoing identity theft but no incidents in the four weeks before the warrant was issued.Defendant argued the information provided in the search warrant affidavit was stale and did not provide probable cause for the warrant. Even though the information concerning defendant’s illegal use of the victim’s identity did not indicate that he had engaged in the activity in the last four weeks before the issuance of the warrant, the information concerning ongoing identity theft (unlike a solitary drug buy) provided probable cause. id: 21799
The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence AOL instant messages seized from defendant's home computer where police knew the defendant and minor were communicating by computer.Defendant was charged with sodomy of a minor and oral copulation of a minor after meeting a 15 year-old in an Internet chat room. He argued the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence of the America Online instant messages seized from his home computer. The search warrant seeking such evidence was not overly broad. The AOL instant messages fell into the category of correspondence relating to the exploitation of children. Defendant also argued there was no information in the search warrant affidavit to support the conclusion that he possessed such evidence. However, home computers are common and the officers knew the defendant and the minor were communicating by computer. There was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found on defendant's computer.id: 17003
Information regarding defendant's residence was not stale despite the lack of surveillance for six months where there was no reason to believe she moved and there was ample evidence of a continuing criminal enterprise.Defendant argued the information in the search warrant affidavit was stale at the time of the search since the last police surveillance linking her to the residence was six months old. However, there was no reason to believe defendant had moved and there was ample evidence of a continuing criminal enterprise.id: 14919
Search warrant based on information given four days after defendant's arrest was not stale.Defendant was found to be carrying twelve small bags of marijuana when arrested based on outstanding warrants. Four days after the arrest, the officer called the telephone number given by the defendant in an attempt to verify the address. The officer spoke with defendant's roommate who confirmed that defendant lived at that address. The information given by the officer in his search warrant affidavit was not fatally stale and the affidavit set forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause to search the residence.id: 11081
Warrant authorizing the search of all of a doctor's files was not overbroad where the affidavit stating 90 percent of the files contained fraud established a fair probability that each file contained fraud.Defendant plead guilty to various felony charges arising from a widespread insurance fraud related to his medical practice. He argued the search warrant authorizing seizure of all patient files was overbroad despite the estimate in the search warrant affidavit that 90 percent of the files contained evidence of fraud. However, the 90 percent estimate, which was supported by evidence, established a fair probability that evidence of fraud would be found in the files. This standard was set forth in <i>Illinois v. Gates</i> (1983) 462 U.S. 2.13. Moreover, the seizure did not violate the privacy rights of the patients as the court maintained ultimate control over the property and could have issued protective orders to prevent improper disclosures if necessary.id: 11082
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245