United States of America v. Juleus Judkins

Denver, Colorado criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with 21 U.S.C. § 841

(possession with intent to distribute), 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (use of a telephone in the

commission of a felony drug offense), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug offense).



* * *



The Fourth Amendment allows judges to issue search warrants only if they are

supported by probable cause and "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched,

and the persons or things to be seized.” United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127, 1131

(10th Cir. 2009) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV). This particularity requirement

"ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications and will not take

on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to

prohibit.” Id. at 1131–32 (quoting Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987)).

"[W]hether a search warrant is sufficiently particular depends in part on the nature of

the crimes being investigated.” United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1127 (10th

Cir. 2011). For electronic search warrants, the particularity requirement is "that

much more important.” Otero, 563 F.3d at 1132 (citing United States v. Riccardi,

405 F.3d 852, 863 (10th Cir. 2005)). The "Fourth Amendment requires warrants for

computer searches to 'affirmatively limit the search to evidence of specific . . .

crimes or specific types of material.'” United States v. Palms, 21 F.4th 689, 698

(10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Otero, 563 F.3d at 1132)

Defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to 70 months in prison.