United States v. James Higgins, United States of America v. James Higgins

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the search was unconstitutional where \[i]t [was] evident that the officers could not determine from the warrant which apartment was to be searched and that they made that determination by searching all apartments until they discovered the one they were looking for\
• concluding that the search was unconstitutional where “[i]t [was] evident that the officers could not determine from the warrant which apartment was to be searched and that they made that determination by searching all apartments until they discovered the one they were looking for”
• concluding that the search was unconstitutional where \[i]t [was] evident that the officers could not determine from the warrant which apartment was to be searched and that they made that determination by searching all apartments until they discovered the one they were looking for\
• \[P]robable cause and the particular description of the place to be searched are essential requirements of equal importance.\
• apartment building had several separate addresses and otherwise was subdivided into apartments in ways that were externally “evident” to the police
• \[P]robable cause and the particular description of the place to be searched are essential requirements of equal importance.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).