The following excerpt is from United States v. Sedaghaty, D.C. No.6:05-cr-60008-HO-2, No. 11-30342 (9th Cir. 2013):
the agents did not follow it. See Hurd, 499 F.3d at 969 (holding that officers reasonably relied on the warrant, though judge inadvertently failed to initial the appropriate line); United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (determining that magistrate's error in post-dating one line of the warrant did not require suppression of the evidence seized).
The government's seizure of items beyond the terms of the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. In the absence of "flagrant disregard for the terms of the warrant," a district court need not "suppress all of the evidence, including evidence that was not tainted by the violation." United States v. Chen, 979 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Th[e] extraordinary remedy [of suppressing evidence seized within the scope of the warrant] should be used only when the violations of the warrant's requirements are so extreme that the search is essentially transformed into an impermissible general search." Id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.