State v. Hannuksela

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that warrant was sufficiently particular because officers did not “definitely know all of the circumstances surrounding” the offense
• concluding that the search warrant was “invalid” because it lacked particularity
• noting that the prohibition against general warrants prevents “exploratory rummaging through a person’s 16 belongings”
• suggesting that solicitation of additional briefing would have been appropriate if application of the doctrine had been \either novel or questionable\
• observing that this court has a duty to decide cases in accordance with the law
• observing that “it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law” even if the parties fail to raise an argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).