Heath v. Hazelip

How courts have described this case

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

• deeming warrant overbroad that did not limit seizure to \a very small and specific subset of data\ or \describe that data with as much particularity as the circumstances allowed\
• finding a communications data warrant \ha[d] no valid portions\ because the description of the search— \any and all files\—was broader than the evidence over which the police had probable cause
• finding a CDW \had no valid portions\ because the description of the search — \any and all files\ — was broader than the evidence over which the police had probable cause
• “Most importantly, the warrant should have specified the relevant time frame”
• “The major, overriding problem with the description of the object of the search – ‘any or all files’ – is that the police did not have probable cause to believe that everything on the phone was evidence of the crime of public indecency.”
• “The bottom line is that if [the applying officer] wants to seize every type of data from the cell phone, then it was incumbent upon him to explain in the complaint how and why each type of data was connected to [Defendant’s] criminal activity, and he did not do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).