United States v. Barbara E. Stefonek, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an authorization to seize any “‘evidence of crime’” does not satisfy the particularity requirement
• “Significantly, the particularity requirement applies to the warrant, as opposed to the application or the supporting affidavit submitted by the applicant.” (emphasis added)
• \Business criminals are not to be treated more leniently than members of the 'criminal class' just by virtue of being regularly employed or otherwise productively engaged in lawful economic activity.\
• “The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant particularly describe the things to be seized, not the papers presented to the judicial officer . . . asked to issue the warrant”
• “The idea that sanctions should be proportioned to the gravity of the wrong is funda- mental, and it has become an important element of the juris- prudence of the Fourth Amendment.”
• “Criminals who have the education and training that enables people to make a decent living without resorting to crime are more rather than less culpable than their desperately poor and deprived brethren in crime.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).