08-14-2025, 03:12 PM
That makes the overbreadth problem even bigger.
If the only basis for the warrant was an uncorroborated threat, then:
1. Probable Cause Issue
A warrant requires probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
If the threat was never corroborated — meaning no independent evidence tied the suspects, location, or devices to the alleged statement — then the factual foundation for the warrant is shaky from the start.
Courts have thrown out warrants issued on bare, unverified claims (see Aguilar v. Texas, Spinelli v. U.S.), especially when the source’s credibility and basis of knowledge weren’t established.
2. General Warrant + Weak Probable Cause = Very Vulnerable
Even if there was probable cause for some evidence, the seizure language here lets police grab all devices and all data.
When probable cause is thin, courts are even more demanding that the warrant be tightly limited to avoid fishing expeditions.
Here, they did the opposite — they wrote it so broadly it could be used to rummage through unrelated private information.
3. Lack of Nexus
There has to be a clear nexus between the alleged crime (a verbal or written threat) and the place/items searched.
The affidavit would need to explain why they believed evidence of that threat would be on those specific devices in that specific house.
If the affidavit just says “threat reported” and then jumps to “search every computer in the home,” that’s a classic general warrant problem.
Given those facts, you could be looking at both:
A probable cause defect (uncorroborated, no sufficient nexus)
A particularity defect (overbroad “any and all” language)
Those two together are exactly what the Framers of the Fourth Amendment wanted to stop — they called it the “evil of general warrants.”
If you’d like, I can rewrite your warrant text highlighting every part that is legally vulnerable, so you have a clear visual of the overbreadth and probable cause problems in one glance. That can be useful for motions to suppress. Would you like me to do that?
If the only basis for the warrant was an uncorroborated threat, then:
1. Probable Cause Issue
A warrant requires probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
If the threat was never corroborated — meaning no independent evidence tied the suspects, location, or devices to the alleged statement — then the factual foundation for the warrant is shaky from the start.
Courts have thrown out warrants issued on bare, unverified claims (see Aguilar v. Texas, Spinelli v. U.S.), especially when the source’s credibility and basis of knowledge weren’t established.
2. General Warrant + Weak Probable Cause = Very Vulnerable
Even if there was probable cause for some evidence, the seizure language here lets police grab all devices and all data.
When probable cause is thin, courts are even more demanding that the warrant be tightly limited to avoid fishing expeditions.
Here, they did the opposite — they wrote it so broadly it could be used to rummage through unrelated private information.
3. Lack of Nexus
There has to be a clear nexus between the alleged crime (a verbal or written threat) and the place/items searched.
The affidavit would need to explain why they believed evidence of that threat would be on those specific devices in that specific house.
If the affidavit just says “threat reported” and then jumps to “search every computer in the home,” that’s a classic general warrant problem.
Given those facts, you could be looking at both:
A probable cause defect (uncorroborated, no sufficient nexus)
A particularity defect (overbroad “any and all” language)
Those two together are exactly what the Framers of the Fourth Amendment wanted to stop — they called it the “evil of general warrants.”
If you’d like, I can rewrite your warrant text highlighting every part that is legally vulnerable, so you have a clear visual of the overbreadth and probable cause problems in one glance. That can be useful for motions to suppress. Would you like me to do that?