United States v. Daniel Scott Gahagan (87-1991), Michael John Gahagan (87-1993), Susan Soper (87-1992)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a supporting affidavit could cure an overly broad warrant even though the affidavit was not attached to the warrant because the affidavit was available to the officers during the search
• concluding that where the warrant is valid, the search is conducted in accordance with the warrant and the affiant is there to answer questions and direct his fellow officers, the search is valid despite the absence of the affidavit
• “[T]he Fourth Amendment safeguard is designed to require a description which particularly points to a definitely ascertainable place so as to exclude all others.”
• number of other residents in the area affects possibility of a mistaken search of another premises
• affiant “conducted a pre search briefing session for those officers who participated in the search and provided them a description of the premises to be searched”
• affiant described property to the magistrate judge, judge found probable cause to search property as described by the affiant, affiant was one of the executing officers, and search was confined to the areas the affiant described

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).