the rest. In such instances, only items seized under the invalid portions of the warrant must be suppressed.” United States v. Krasaway, 881 F.2d 550, 553 (8th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615, 622 (8th Cir.2006) (“[W]here the warrant is invalid only in part, the warrant is ‘severa-ble,’ and items seized pursuant to valid portions of the warrant need not be suppressed”). Here, no computer hard drives, disks or stored data were seized. See Gov’t Ex. 2, Attachment A, Bates Stamp Nos. 000024-27. As such, even if this portion of the warrant were severed, the evidence seized from the residence would clearly fall within valid portions of warrant, and suppression of the evidence seized in this case is not required. See Krasaway, 881 F.2d at 553 (<HOLDING>). Nyberg’s particularity argument is rejected.
holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant holding the trial court properly denied the defendants motion to suppress where the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court