Demuth v. Fletcher, CIV. 08-5093 JRT/LIB, 2011 WL 1298020, at *14 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2011) (stating that “it was clearly established that at the time of the seizures, taking nearly every document, with little regard for its contents, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment as a failure to enforce the scrupulous exactitude with which the warrant was required to be drawn”).
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 563 (2004) (“Given that the particularity requirement is set forth in the text of the Constitution, no reasonable officer could believe that a warrant that plainly did not comply with that requirement was valid.”).
Johnson v. Davis, 175 F.3d 1024, at *1-2 (8th Cir. 1999) (“The law was clearly established at the time of the search in 1993 that a search warrant must describe with specificity the place to be searched. . . . If and when appellants became aware of the defects in the warrant, clearly established law would have required that they stop their search of 772 Annette Street.”).
Dawkins v. Graham, 50 F.3d 532, 535 (8th Cir. 1995) (“The more specific right not to be subjected to the unreasonable mistaken execution of a valid search warrant was also clearly established at the time of the search in this case.”).