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
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
​ A WAIVER OF APPEAL NOT MENTIONED UNTIL SENTENCING IN INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDACT STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT COUNSEL FROM THE PREPLEA INVESTIGATION REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INTRODUCE TAPED THIRD-PARTY CONFESSION, THE RELIABILITY PRONG OF THE STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CRITERIA WAS VERY WEAK.
THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION BEFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SECONDARY EVIDENCE (HEARSAY TESTIMONY) AND EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR COLLATERAL MATTERS LIKE IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO A CORE ISSUE; HERE THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE PRESENTED TO A BANK EMPLOYEE WAS RELEVANT TO THE ‘THREATENED USE OF FORCE ‘ ELEMENT OF ROBBERY (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY UPON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF AT TRIAL; IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second Floor Was Not an Elevation-Related Risk within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1)/Nature of Labor Law 200 Action Explained

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...