The following excerpt is from Gant v. Cnty. of L.A., 772 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2014):
7 Gant argues that two cases, United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1982), and United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959 (9th Cir.1986), are dispositive as to his Fourth Amendment claims. These cases, however, address search warrants, not arrest warrants, and we are aware of no authority incorporating the rules articulated in these cases into our case law regarding the adequacy of arrest warrants.
7 Gant argues that two cases, United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1982), and United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959 (9th Cir.1986), are dispositive as to his Fourth Amendment claims. These cases, however, address search warrants, not arrest warrants, and we are aware of no authority incorporating the rules articulated in these cases into our case law regarding the adequacy of arrest warrants.
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.