greenfield v. luce

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the term “standing” as “used in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence . . . does not present a jurisdictional question”
• providing that the court \review[s] de novo the district court's finding that the warrants lack sufficient particularity\
• stating that one relevant factor in appraising the specificity of warrants is whether the government could have de scribed the items more particularly “in light of the information available to it at the time the warrant was issued”
• noting that “the government could have narrowed most of the descriptions in the warrant[]” and expressly relying on the conclusion that “the descriptions found deficient in Cardwell were at least as precise as the descriptions at issue here”
• considering favorably warrants “describing the criminal activity] ... rather than simply referring to the statute believed to have been violated.”
• noting that “the government could have narrowed most of the descriptions in the warrant[]” and ex pressly relying on the conclusion that the descriptions found deficient in Cardwell were at least as precise as the descriptions at issue here”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).