United States v. Stephen Kow Helen Kim Noi Soo and Hong Tho Luu

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that severance was not available because only two of fourteen categories of seizable documents were even arguably not overbroad and thus “the valid portion of the warrant [was] a relatively insignificant part of an otherwise invalid search”
• holding that a warrant was defective because, among other shortcomings, it \did not limit the scope of the seizure to a time frame within which the suspected criminal activity took place\
• concluding that severance was not available because only two of fourteen categories of seizable documents were even arguably not overbroad and thus “the valid portion of the w arrant [was] a relatively insignificant part of an otherw ise invalid search”
• holding a warrant to be insufficiently particu- larized where it authorized officers to seize from a video store any documents fitting under one of several dozen general cat- egories
• holding warrant to be overbroad when allowing seizure of computers and computer files and storage devices because it failed to limit discretion in any way such as defining the criminal conduct at issue
• rejecting search warrant on particularity and overbreadth grounds as warrant failed, in part, to specify alleged crime to which the seized documents related

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).