You are here: / / THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S...
,

THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s cell phone should have been granted because the search warrant lacked particularity:

A search warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . To meet the particularity requirement, a search warrant must (1) “identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause,” (2) “describe the place to be searched,” and (3) “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Here, the search warrant authorized and directed the police to search for … “cellular phones (including contents)” located in defendant’s vehicle. Significantly, the search was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion over the search to the executing officers …. The search warrant states that an affidavit from a police investigator provided the basis for the finding of probable cause for the search. Although that affidavit contained information about the crime and defendant’s exchange of text messages with the victim before the crime, the mere mention in a search warrant of an affidavit or application “does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity” where the search warrant contains no language incorporating that document … . People v Wiggins, 2024 NY Slip Op 03614, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: A search warrant which does not restrict the search to evidence of a particular crime is invalid because it fails to meet the particularity requirement.

Practice Point: Reference in a search warrant to an affidavit which is not incorporated into the warrant doesn’t overcome the defect.

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
CODEFENDANT WAS SEEN ENTERING A CAR WITH A WEAPON WHICH WAS LATER FOUND ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE WEAPON WAS POSSESSED BY ALL IN THE CAR DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT TENANT CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AND ABANDONED THE LEASED PROPERTY DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; PLAINTIFF LANDLORD TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND CHANGED THE LOCKS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES AND THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH UNPRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper
PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
CPL 330.30 MOTION ALLEGING JUROR MISCONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS, I.E. CONDUCTING A REENACTMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS WERE... THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX MONTHS...