City of Pomona v. Sociedad Quimica Y Minera De Chile S.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that good faith rule did not apply because “[i]t was clearly established that a warrant which fails to specify the crimes for which the search was being undertaken lacks particularity,” and “that a warrant with unduly broad, ambiguous, or catch-all categories lacks particularity.”
• holding warrant overbroad because it failed to provide \any instructions” respecting seizure of clinic records by reference to \particular suspects in the case ... the time period of the suspected conspiracy ... the crimes alleged, or any other limits”
• also cautioning that “these factors will likely align -in the vast majority of cases where the applicable Fourth Amendment law is clearly established”
• “In determining whether a warrant is overbroad, courts must focus on ‘whether there exists probable cause to support the breadth of the search that was' authorized.’”
• “In cases where the all records exception has been applied, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant contained detailed information that would provide reason to believe that all or nearly all of the business under investigation was illegal.”
• \It is improper to use a bill of particulars to compel the Government to disclose the manner in which it will prove the charges or preview its evidence or legal theory.\ (internal citation and alteration omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).