Sargent v. Peirce

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that limiting language in the affidavit attached to the warrant cured the nonspecificity of the war- rant
• holding that the defendant bore the burden of estab- lishing facts pertaining to the challenge to the validity of the warrant, including controverting the inference that affi- davit physically accompanied the warrant and was incorpo- rated
• concluding that the war- rant’s description of information of internet search history for a specific date “informed those executing the warrant as to what they were to look for with a reasonable degree of certainty” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying that standard and concluding that the warrant to search for internet history from a specific date was not facially unlawful
• noting that the Warrant Clause requires similar limitations when applied to warrants for a “computer or other digital device”
• emphasizing that the particularity require- ment is informed by the “related, but distinct, concepts” of specificity and overbreadth

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).