08-24-2025, 05:49 PM
The warrant was a general warrant because it did not particularize what they were supposed to search for and allowed the seizure of all computers and "any and all files" on those computers. The US Supreme Court had put an end to the wholesale seizure of all files in Riley v California back 2014. In 2015 in United States v Winn, the US District court sided with Winn that the search warrant he had was a general warrant because it allowed the seizure of "any and all files" on his digital device citing Riley.
The warrant was also invalid because it was based on a hunch, not probable cause. The police did not corroborate the tip nor did they do any investigation. Under the US Supreme Court ruling of Gates v Illinois (1985) The US Supreme Court ruled that corroboration and investigation was required when police received an anonymous tip. The Court ruled against the Gates because although the police received an anonymous tip, the police did investigate and did corroborate the tip. In this case Illinois v Daugherty, the police did NOT corroborate the tip, nor did they investigate.
The warrant was also invalid because it was based on a hunch, not probable cause. The police did not corroborate the tip nor did they do any investigation. Under the US Supreme Court ruling of Gates v Illinois (1985) The US Supreme Court ruled that corroboration and investigation was required when police received an anonymous tip. The Court ruled against the Gates because although the police received an anonymous tip, the police did investigate and did corroborate the tip. In this case Illinois v Daugherty, the police did NOT corroborate the tip, nor did they investigate.