Harrison v. Schottenstein

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 good-faith exception applies to warrants that are void ab initio \
• stating that the warrant was \void ab initio\ because it violated \jurisdictional limitations and was not authorized by any positive law\
• “The UNITED STATES V. HENDERSON 9 warrant exceeded the general territorial scope identified in Rule 41(b)(1) by authorizing a search of an “activating computer” in California. However, the government counters that the NIT warrant was nonetheless authorized under Rule 41(b
• technical violations of warrant procedure do not warrant suppression absent bad faith on the officer’s part, good faith doctrine bars suppression even for warrants void ab initio where officers acted in good faith reliance upon the warrant
• “Rule 41 should be read flexibly ‘to include within its scope electronic intrusions authorized upon a finding of probable cause’ so that it can keep up with technological innovations.” (quoting N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 169)
• “[E]ven though Rule 41(b) did not authorize the magistrate judge to issue the NIT warrant, future law enforcement officers may apply for and obtain such a warrant pursuant to Rule 41(b)(6), which went into effect in December 2016 to authorize NIT‐like warrants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).