FBI warrants oddly cite ‘districts’ rather than the 50 union states. They do this because they do not have jurisdiction over the states.
Take this warrant against Google, which is located with California, but they end the location with the Northern District of California.
If federal LEOs had jurisdiction within California (1850), then the search warrant would just say California.
Sure, the Justice Department has districts, for their internal organization, but on a warrant that would be superfluous. But on this warrant, that district is essential, because as stated above, Justice Dept does not have jurisdiction within California (1850).
In a different warrant, the introduction (first section) says it occurred within the Eastern District of Virginia. In this sentence, no mention of Virginia (1776).
I might also ask the officer to stand on the land referenced by the warrant.
Of course, this would not be possible because my home is not part of any of their districts. It’s not even within their district. Their districts only cover territory over which United States, in congress assembled, has jurisdiction.
- The Buck Act and other articles by Richard: McDonald
- Using non-domestic letters to establish domicile. A miracle on thy street. Kris of the Kringles did it this way.