State v. Askham
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
— A search warrant must be sufficiently particular to prevent a general exploratory search. This is frequently achieved by specifying the suspected crime. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 28, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). The search warrant here authorized the seizure of a broad range of computer files and images, but did not specify a crime. We conclude nonetheless that the warrant was specific enough. We also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Leonard Askham’s convictions for second degree theft, criminal harassment, stalking, and libel. We therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Mr.…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- State v. GreenWashington Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. StensonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. StensonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. DelmarterWashington Supreme Court · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. KintzWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. KintzWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. ChangCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- State v. ChangCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- State v. HainesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.