The particularity requirement demands that warrants describe with specificity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Police cannot get a warrant to search "anywhere" for "anything related to crime." The warrant must say: search the garage at 123 Main Street for stolen electronics.
The Founders wrote this rule to ban general warrants. British soldiers would search colonial homes without saying what they were looking for. The Constitution required officers to tell a judge exactly what they're searching for and where they expect to find it. This specificity serves two purposes: it forces police to focus their investigation rather than go on fishing expeditions, and it tells the property owner what will be taken.
In 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie v. United States, testing whether geofence warrants—which force Google to hand over location data for every device in a geographic area during a specific time window—violate the particularity requirement. Geofence warrants cast wide nets: "All devices in this one-mile radius between 3 and 5 p.m." Police say it's particular because the area and time are specified. Critics say it's a general warrant because it targets everyone in the area, innocent or guilty. The Sixth Circuit ruled in United States v. Kirtdoll (2024) that the standard doesn't demand perfection but does require enough specificity to prevent officers from searching the wrong place. As police seek data from phones, cloud accounts, and location services, courts wrestle with what "particularity" means when the "place" is digital.
Particularity prevents fishing expeditions. Police must focus investigations on specific suspects and specific places. Without it, officers could conduct sweeping searches affecting innocent people.
People often think warrants must name specific people. In practice, warrants typically describe places and items, not names—though the warrant must be based on facts about a specific suspect.
Particularity prevents fishing expeditions. Police must focus investigations on specific suspects and specific places. Without it, officers could conduct sweeping searches affecting innocent people.
People often think warrants must name specific people. In practice, warrants typically describe places and items, not names—though the warrant must be based on facts about a specific suspect.