Use of "all" in a warrant does not render it general
FourthAmendment.com:
The use of the word “‘all,’ in and of itself, does not render a warrant a general warrant,” particularly, as here, the warrant “reasonably sought all documents with other people’s names.” United States v. Greene, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42762 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2008).*
There was a fact dispute as to the crime that plaintiff was fleeing from and whether the officers properly identified themselves before a PIT maneuver was used to stop him. Three of four factors favored plaintiff. Marshall v. West, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42973 (M.D. Ala. June 2, 2008):
Defendants do not dispute that the use of the PIT maneuver constituted a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; thus, the court focuses on the level of force used during the seizure and whether it was “objectively reasonable.” Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1776. The factors upon which the parties concentrate in analyzing the constitutionality of West’s use of the PIT maneuver are: (1) the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries; (2) whether Plaintiff was resisting or fleeing an arrest; (3) whether Plaintiff posed an immediate threat; and (4) the severity of the crime.
. . .
In sum, while the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries weighs in favor of West, the court finds that the other three factors weigh in favor of Plaintiff and tilt the scales toward a finding that West used excessive force. Accepting the factual inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s crime was a misdemeanor seatbelt infraction; Plaintiff did not pose an immediate threat to Defendants or innocent bystanders; and Plaintiff understandably resisted Defendants’ demands that he pull over because Defendants failed to adequately identify themselves to Plaintiff as law enforcement officers. On these summary judgment facts, which may not be the actual facts at trial, the court finds that Plaintiff has established…