As I have previously explained, "[s]ection 1983 does not itself confer substantive rights on a plaintiff, but is instead the means by which an injured party may seek vindication." Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F. Supp. 3d 198, 204 (D. Conn. 2016). The statute provides, in relevant part:
"Section 1983 does not itself confer substantive rights on a plaintiff, but is instead the means by which an injured party may seek vindication." Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F. Supp. 3d 198, 204 (D. Conn. 2016). The statute provides, in relevant part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
"Section 1983 does not itself confer substantive rights on a plaintiff, but is instead the means by which an injured party may seek vindication." Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F. Supp. 3d 198, 204 (D. Conn. 2016). The statute provides, in relevant part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
“[T]he Fourth Amendment includes a requirement that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F.Supp.3d 198, 204 (D. Conn. 2016) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The warrant must be “sufficiently particularized on its face to provide the necessary guidelines for the search by the executing officers,” United States v. Zemlyansky, 945 F.Supp.2d 438, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), allowing them “with reasonable effort [to] ascertain and identify the place intended,” Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925)
As to the first question, “[p]roperty interests . . . are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law. Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F.Supp.3d 198, 206 (D. Conn. 2016) (quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). “
"Section 1983 does not itself confer substantive rights on a plaintiff, but is instead the means by which an injured party may seek vindication." Youngs v. Fusaro, 179 F. Supp. 3d 198, 204 (D. Conn. 2016). The statute provides, in relevant part: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)); United States v. Lora-Solano , 330 F.3d 1288, 1293 (10th Cir. 2003) ("[a] technically wrong address does not invalidate a warrant if it otherwise describes the premises with sufficient particularity so that the police can ascertain and identify the place to be searched"), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 940, 124 S. Ct. 1658, 158 L. Ed. 2d 362 (2004) ; Youngs v. Fusaro , 179 F. Supp. 3d 198, 204–205 (D. Conn. 2016) (technical error such as incorrect street address does not necessarily invalidate warrant when possibility of actual error can be eliminated by other information such as detailed description of property in warrant itself). In its brief, the state relies on certain Connecticut case law for the standard this court must apply in determining the validity of the warrant.