POLICE SEARCH HOME. The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a warrant to include a description of the “place to be searched.” The police officers here—at first—complied with that requirement, obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well, and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.
We agree with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched.
Full case here: POLICE SEARCH HOME. Manriquez v. Ensley, — F.4th —- (2022), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/30/20-16917.pdf
Filed under: 4th Amendment & Searches
Related articles
- Were You Within a Mile of a Crime? The Government Wanted Your Phone Location Data. Judge said NO!October 21, 2026 · ▶ Video
- Police Tased Him and His Pet Snake for “Matching the Description” Because He Had Dreads. OVERTURNEDOctober 14, 2026 · ▶ Video
- FLOCK CAMERA Searches Violate the 4th Amendment; Federal Judge Throws Out ALL Evidence!October 7, 2026 · ▶ Video
- Can Police Stop You JUST Because You’re on Probation or Parole? (California Law)September 2, 2026 · ▶ Video

