[Knitebane]

I’m not a lawyer. I believe this falls under the doctrine of “Plain View”. As long as you are in a place that you are legally allowed to be in, you can seize what is in plain view.

Unless the stuff in Plain View is only seen because you were in the house with a bad warrant. Then that evidence get tossed too.

And most judges won't allow a do-over.

[1035rep]

IF the warrant is found to bad on it’s face then you are correct. BUT the name error would have to change the material facts in the warrant. As long as the search warrant is executed in good faith it will stand.

[jude24]

Unless the stuff in Plain View is only seen because you were in the house with a bad warrant. Then that evidence get tossed too.

Not likely. When police get a warrant, as long as they didn't act with reckless disregard for the truth, the evidence found is admissible. The exclusionary rule exists only to deter police misconduct, not to compensate for a technically illegal search.

In other words, if the police obtained the warrant in good faith, the fruits of the search are admissible in most jurisdictions. (I.e., not New York.)