Mary Isabel Ruiz v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “we are ‘a court of review, not of first view’” (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7 (2005))
• noting that warrants should be construed “in a practical and commonsense fashion, avoiding a hypertechnical reading of their terms”
• noting the separate categorization of different search terms suggesting “they authorized officers to search for items different than those expressly listed elsewhere”
• stating warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment was “the product of contemporary revulsion against a regime of general warrants that gave British officials carte blanche to search and seize property of American colonists”
• rejecting a warrant as overbroad that permitted the search and seizure of “any item identified as being involved in 45 Appellate Case: 24-1201 Document: 79 Date Filed: 02/24/2026 Page: 46 the [crime]” (citation omitted)
• rejecting a warrant as overbroad that permitted the search and seizure of “any item identified as being involved in 45 Appellate Case: 24-1201 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026 Page: 47 the [crime]” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).