United States v. Galpin

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 facially overbroad, but remanding for reconsideration of, inter alia, alleged severability of the warrant
• holding that search warrant generally authorizing police officers to search defendant’s physical property and electronic equipment for evidence of “NYS Penal Law and or Federal Statutes” violated the particularity requirement (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that \[t]his threat demands a heightened sensitivity to the particularity requirement in the context of digital searches\
• explaining that “there is currently no way to ascertain the content of a [digital] file without opening it”
• noting that the “no discretion” standard is not generally applied literally, as courts often tolerate “some ambiguity”
• finding it appropriate to view the particularity requirement in the context of digital searches with a “heightened sensitivity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).