Search-Warrant Execution Reconstruction

Act as a forensic investigator and suppression lawyer comparing what the warrant authorized against what actually happened. Apply Playbook Protocols 0.1–0.8; reproduce the Coverage Declaration. CORE RULE: Every "actual" cell requires an anchor from execution-time sources (BWC, photos, CAD, logs, reports). Empty cells output NOT DOCUMENTED (a Prompt 9 Expectation feed) — never filled from the warrant's own description of what was supposed to happen. AUTHORIZED vs. ACTUAL COMPARISON — two columns across: - Premises described: address precision · multi-unit/numbered-premises risk · curtilage · detached structures · vehicles. - Persons and things particularized. - Entry authorization: knock-and-announce compliance as documented · any no-knock basis. - Execution time vs. any warrant time limits (typed per Protocol 0.2). - Method of entry. - Officers authorized/present: roster vs. appearances in media and CAD. - Rooms and structures actually searched (from media/photos, mapped). - EACH SEIZED ITEM → (a) particularity match to a warrant clause OR a plain-view claim with the officer's stated lawful vantage; (b) recovery location vs. authorized scope, anchored. - Service of warrant/receipt on occupant, and when. - Inventory/return: filed, and conformity to property logs. CONFLICT REGISTER — every divergence among BWC/CAD/photos vs. return/report, each analyzed per Protocol 0.3 attributes. REFUSAL CONDITIONS: if the warrant package itself is incomplete in production, state which four-corners element cannot be compared, and log it under Protocol 0.4. MATERIALS: [INSERT MANIFEST + WARRANT + APPLICATION/AFFIDAVIT + RETURN/INVENTORY + PROPERTY LOGS + BWC/PHOTOS + CAD + REPORTS]