The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Graff, 897 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1990):
Graff also contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress in that the search warrant was overbroad because it failed to specifically describe items to be seized. We review de novo an overbreadth challenge to the validity of a search warrant. United States v. Hurt, 795 F.2d 765, 772, amended, reh'g denied, 808 F.2d 707, 708 (9th Cir.1986). Because the district court did not make findings of fact regarding overbreadth, "we will uphold a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that will sustain it." United States v. Rabe, 848 F.2d 994, 997 (9th Cir.1988) citing United States v. Harrington, 636 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1980).
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.