United States v. Rosa

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that after Groh, courts “may no. longer rely on unincorporated, unattached supporting documents to cure an otherwise defective search warrant”
• testifying that he is not sure whether credit cards, financial contracts, insurance contracts, real estate titles constitute “financial instruments”
• noting that Blake and his team relied on “their knowledge of the investigation and the contemplated limits of the town justice’s authorization”
• concluding that a warrant to search a digital device “failed to describe with particularity the evidence sought and, more specifically, to link that evidence to the criminal activity supported by probable cause,” resulting in an impermissible “general warrant”
• explaining that although unincorporated, unattached supporting documents cannot cure constitutionally defective warrant, “those documents are still relevant to our determination of whether the officers acted in good faith”
• emphasizing, with approval, that the searching officers relied on “their knowledge of the investigation and the contemplated limits of the town justice’s authorization,” rather than “actually reifying] on the defective warrant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).