2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-1-2010 

# U SA v . R alph T r a cey P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3290

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . R alp h T r a c ey " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1594. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1594H o n or abl e Ter r ence F. M cV err y , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 3290

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA A ppel l ant v. RA LPH D OU GLA S TRACEY

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 1- 08- cr - 00126- 1) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

A r gued Sept ember 29, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges and M cV E R R Y , D i s t r i ctJ udge *2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 1, 2010 ) M ar t i n C

. C ar l s on U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney T heodor e B

. Sm i t h, I I I ( A r gued) G or don A

. D

. Z ubr od A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C rim in a l A p p e a ls O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 2 2 8 W a ln u t S tre e t, P. O

. B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17108- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant St eve Ri ce, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 18 C ar l i s l e St r eet , Sui t e 215 G et t y s bur g, PA 17325 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T he U ni t ed St at es G overnm entappea l s the or derof the3 D i s t r i ctC our ts uppr es s i ng evi dence s ei zed a nd a s t a t e me n tmade d u ri n g a se arc h co n d u cted p u rsua n t t o a w arran t. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e w a rra n t w a s g e n e ra l a n d n o t c u re d b y th e a f f id a v it of pr obabl e ca us e bec ause itw as noti ncorpor at ed i nt o t he w arr ant
. T he C our tal s o concl uded t hat a r eas onabl yobj ect i ve pol i ce of

fi cer w o u l d have r ecogni zed thatt he w arr antw as d ef ec ti v e, an d thu s the g o o d fa ith ex ce p ti o n to the ex clus ion ary rul e di d notappl y . O n appea l , t he G overnm ent ar gues t hatt he w arr antw as notgener al becau se i ti ncorpor at ed the narr ow er aff i davi t , t hat t he s ear ch w as l i m i t ed t o t he s cope o f that aff i davi t , and that , i n anyevent , t he good fai t h exce pt i on appl i es to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e . R el y i ng on ourdeci s i on i n D oe v. G r oody , 361 F. 3d 232 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e w a rra n t d id n o t in c o rp o ra te th e a f f id a v it o f p ro b a b le c a u se , a n d th u s th e n a rro w e r a f f id a v it did not cure the co nc e d e dlyov erbr oad w arr ant. W e al so concl ude that t he G overnm entw ai ved anyar gum ent s bas ed on t he exce pt i on t o t he i ncorpor at i on rul e appl i ed i n U ni t ed Stat es v . L e v e to , 5 4 0 F .3 d 2 0 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t
. deni ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 7 9 0 (2 0 0 9 ), b y f

a ili n g to ra ise th e m b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt. H ow ever , w e hol d t hat appl i cat i on of the exc l us i onaryrul e i s not j us t i fi ed bec aus e the off icers act ed i n good fai t h byr el y i ng on t he val i di t y of t he w arr ant
. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or ders uppr es s i ng t he evi dence s ei zed a s a r es ul tof the s ear ch and the s t at ement m ade dur i ng t he s ear ch, and r emand for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .C har ges agai ns t T r ace y w er e i ni t i al l y fi l ed i n t he C our tof 1 C o m m o n P lea s o f

A d a m s C o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia. B e f o r e sta te pr os ecut i on w as t er m i nat ed i n favorof fe der al pr os ecut i on, t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas J udge hel d pr el i m i naryand pr etr i al hear i ngs and deni ed the mot i on t o s uppr es s T r ace y fi l ed i n t hat C o u rt. In its o p in io n , the D istric t C o u r t r e lied o n th e sta te co u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s an d there fo re d id no t h o ld an e v iden ti ary h e a ri n g . B o th d o c u m e n ts a re a p p e n d e d to th is o p in io n . 2 4 I

. Factual and Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound A ft erconduct i ng an i nves t i gat ion i nt o t he I nt ernet d istrib u tio n o f

a v id e o c o n tain in g im a g e s o f a n a d u lt m a le h a v in g v a g in a l s e x w ith a m in o r f e m a le, th e C h ief

o f th e L ib e rty T ow ns hi p Pol i ce D epa r t m ent , J ames H ol l er , pr es ent ed an a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s e a r c h wa r r a n t t o a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i n Ad a ms C ount y , Penns y l vani a. H ol l erpr epar ed the appl i cat i on fort he 1 w arr antand a s even- page a ffi davi to f pr obabl e ca us e that acc om pani ed the appl i cat i on. H e us ed a s t andar d for m i s s ued 2 byt he A dm i ni s t r at i ve O ffi ce of Penns y l vani a C our t s t hatw as title d “ A p p lic a tio n F o r S e a rc h W a rr a n t A n d A u t h o r iz a tio n .” T he form i ncl uded the appl i cat i on and w arr ant on a s i ngl e page di vi ded i nt o s ever al s ect i ons . U ndert he b lock t i t l ed “I dent i fy Ite m s T o B e S e a rc h e d F o r A n d S e iz e d ,” w h ich d ire c ts a p p lica n ts to “ b e a s s p e c if ic a s p o ss ib le,” H o ller w ro te: A nyi t ems, i m ages, orvi s ual depi ct i onsW h e n th e w a rr a n t w a s is s u e d , 1 8 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 3 6 3 1 2 sta ted in re lev a n t p a rt: ( c) D is s emi nat i on of phot ogr aphs , vi deot apes , comput er depi ct i ons and fi l m s . – (1) A nyperson w ho kn ow i ng l ysel l s, dis t ri bu t es, deli vers, di s s emi nat es , t r ans fer s , di s pl ay s orexhi bi t s t o ot her s , orw ho p o s s e s s e s f

o rt h e p u rp o s e o f s a l e , d i s t r i b u t i o n , d e l i v e r y,

5 r epr es ent i ng t he pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en in c lu d in g v id e o ta p e s o r p h o to g ra p h s . C O M PU T E R S: C om put eri nputand output dev i c e s to i nclude b ut notl i m i t ed to keybo ards, m ice, scan n ers, printers, m o n it o rs, n etw o rk comm uni cat i on devi ces , m odems and ext ernal or connect ed devi ces us ed foracc es s i ng comput er s t or age medi a. I n t he bl ock r equi r i ng a “S p eci fi c D es cr i pt i on O f Pr emi s es A n d / O r Pers on T o B e S earched, ” H oll er i ncluded an ad dress an d a d et ai l ed des cr i pt i on of tw o bui l di ngs l ocat ed att hat addr es s . H e l i s t ed R al ph D ougl as T r ace y , t he def endant , as t he o w n e r o r o c c u p a n t o f

th e p re m is e s to b e s e a rc h e d

. T he box b el ow t he name of the ow nerof the pr emi s es w as di vi ded i nt o fourpar t i t i ons . T he fi r s tand s econd pa r t i t i ons as ked for “V i ol at i on of” a nd t he “D at e( s ) of V i ol at i on. ” H ol l er w r ot e “6312( c) , ( d) PA C r i m es C ode” and l i s t ed t he dat e of the 3di s s emi nat ion, t r ans fer , di s pl ayorexhi bi t i on t o ot her s , any book, m agaz i ne, p am p h l et , s l i de, phot ogr aph, fi l m , vi deot ape, comput erdepi ct i on or ot herm at er i al depi ct i ng a chi l d undert he age of 18 y ear s engagi ng i n a pr ohi bi t ed s exual actori n t he s im u la tio n o f

s u c h a c t c o m m its a n o f f e n s e . ( d ) P o s s e s s i o n o f

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y . – ( 1) A nyper s on w ho know i ngl y pos s es s es or contr ol s anybook, m agaz i ne, pamphl et , s l i de, p hot ogr aph, fi l m , vi deot ape, comput erdepi ct i on orot herm at er i al depi ct i ng a chi l d undert he age o f 18 y ear s engagi ng i n a pr ohi bi t ed s exual actori n t he sim u latio n o f

su c h a c t co m m its a n o f f e n se . 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 6 3 1 2 (a m e n d e d 2 0 0 9 ). A “pr ohi bi t ed s exual act ” w as defi ned as “s exual i n t e r c o u r s e . . . , m a s tu rb a t i o n , s a d i s m , m a s o c h i s m , b e s t i a l i t y, f e llatio , cu n n ili n g u s, le w d e x h ib iti o n o f th e g e n itals o r n u d ityif s uch nudi tyi s depi ct ed for t he purpos e of s exual s t i m ul at i on or gr at i fi cat i on of anyper s on w ho m i ghtvi ew s uch depi ct i on. ” I d. T h e s ta tu te w a s a m e n d e d d u ri n g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e a p p e a l, s ee H

. B

. 89, 193rd G en. A s s em. , R eg. Ses s . ( Pa. 2009) , butt he a m e n d m e n ts a re n o t m a te ri a l to th is c a s e . 6 vi ol at i on as Janua r y9, 2006. A not herpor t i on of thi s box pr ovi ded thr ee s m al l boxe s foran appl i cantt o chec k. H ol l er chec ked al l t hr ee, i ndi cat i ng t hat : 1) t he w arr ant appl i cat i on had been a ppr oved by t he di s t r i ct at t or ney ; 2) addi t i onal pages , ot her t han the af

fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e, w er e att ache d; and 3) t he a f f id a v it o f p ro b a b le c a u se w a s atta c h e d

. T h e b o x p e rta in in g to t he p robable cause affidavi t st at ed “P robable C ause A ffi dav i t (s ) M U ST be att ached (un less s eal ed bel ow )

. ” [A 34] I tw as7 fol l ow ed by a s ent ence r eques t i ng t hatt he appl i canti dent i fyt he to tal n u m b e r o f

p a g e s. H o ller h a n d w ro te “ 7 ” in re sp o n se to th is i nqui r y . U nderneath t hi s s ect i on, he s i gned the form , i ndi cat i ng th a t h e sw o re th e re w a s p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t “c e rta in pr oper t y ” w as evi dence of a c r i m e and w as lo ca te d att he “part i cul ar pr emi s es ” des cr i bed above. I n a s epar at e box bel ow H ol l er ’ s s i g n a tu r e , t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e s i g n e d a n d a t t a c h e d a s eal , i ndi cat i ng t hat t he affi davi t had bee n s w or n befor e hi m on J a n u a ry 3 0 , 2 0 0 6

. O n th e s a m e p a g e a s th e a p p lica tio n , an d im m e d iate ly b elow the b o x cont ai n ing the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s sign ature , there i s a fi nal box, t i t l ed “Sea r ch W arr ant , ” cont ai ni ng t he fol l ow i ng lan g u a g e : W H E R E A S, fac t s have been s w orn t o oraff i r m ed befor e m e by w r i t t en affi davi t ( s ) at t ache d her et o, fr om w hi ch I have f

ound pr obabl e ca us e, I do auth o r i z e y o u t o s e a r c h t h e p r e mi s e s o rp er s on des cr i bed, and t o s ei ze, s ecur e, i nvent or yand m ake r etur n acc or di ng t o t he Penns y l vani a R ul es o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re . T he M agi s t r at e J udge i ndi cat ed w hen the w arr antcoul d be s er ved. B el ow t he d ate and t i m e, t he M agi s t r at e J udge s i gned t he w arr antand att ache d a s eal

. T he sev en-pa ge af fi davi tof p ro b a b le c a u se w a s a ttac h e d to th e a p p lica tio n a n d th e w a rra n t, and the bot t om of ea ch page o f the affi davi ti ncl uded the8 s i gnatur e of H ol l erand the dat e, al ong w i t h t he s i gnatur e of the M a g is tr a te J u d g e , th e s e a l, a n d th e d a te
. T he af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e pro vi ded det ai l ed i nfor m at i on on the inv es t i gat i on of Tra cey . A ccor di ng t o t he a f f id a v it, a n o f

f ice r w a s in v e stig a tin g th e d istrib u tio n o f c h ild por nogr aphyon t he Int ernet by us i ng s oftw ar e t o r ecogni ze a nd m at ch f il es know n t o cont ai n chi l d por nogr aphy

. T he off i cer fo u n d a f

i l e n a me t h a t ma t c h e d a k n o wn mov i e f i l e . T he aff i davi ti ncl uded the di gi t al s i gnatur e of the fi l e and s t at ed that t hi s fi l e w as a vi deo of an adul tm al e havi ng vagi nal s ex w i t h a m in o r f e m a le

. T h e o f f ice r do w n lo a d e d th e m o v ie f ile a n d c o n f

irm e d its cont ent s . T he off

i cert hen determ ine d t he I nt ernetPr ot ocol ( “I P”) addr es s of t he comput er di s t r i but i ng t he fi l m and s ought a c o u rto rde r d irec ti n g A d elph ia, the in terne t service p rov ider, to p ro v id e su b sc rib e r in f o rm a tio n f

o r th e IP a d d re ss a lo n g w ith connec t i on- acc es s l ogs . A del phi a r es ponded that t he accountof t he I P add r es s w as r egi s t er ed t o D oug T r ace yof Fai r fi el d, Penns y l vani a. T he Li ber t yT ow ns hi p P ol i ce D epart m entt hen beca m e i nvol ved i n t he i n v esti g at i on. A ft erconfi r m i ng t he A del phi a acc ount i nfor m at i on, H ol l er vi s i t ed t he addr es s l i s t ed on t he A del phi a ac count and obs er ved a hous e w i t h an att ache d b o d ys h o p . Th e a f f i d a v i ta l s o i n c l u d e d i n f o r ma t i o n a b o u tt h e i t e ms t he off i cer s expec t ed t o s ei ze dur i ng t he sea r ch. O n page tw o of9 t he af fi davi t , H ol l ers t at ed that he expe ct ed t o fi nd “w i t hi n t he r e s i d e n c e o f 2 8 9 6 Tr a c t Ro a d , Li b e r t y To wn s h i p, Ad a ms C ount y , PA 17320, i t ems w hi ch ar e/w er e us ed t o co m m itt he c r i me o f S e x u a l Ab u s e o f

Ch i l d r e n , t o wi t , 1 8 P A. C. S

. A. se c tio n 6 3 1 2 (c ), (d ).” H e f u rth e r sta ted : Y ouraff i anthas del i neat ed the i t ems y ouraff i ant e x p e c ts to f

in d w ith in sa id lo c a tio n w h ich is capt i oned und er “i t ems t o be s ear ched f orand sei zed” a nd y ou r affi ant i nco rporat es that l i st th e re in . P o ss e ss io n o f

th e se item s a re e ith e r in an d o f th em selv es a cr im e o r th eyare /w ere uti l i zed to com m i ta cri m e, t o w i t , S exu al [A ]buse o f [ C ]hil d ren , 1 8 P A

. C

. S

. A

. sec ti o n 6 3 1 2 (c), (d). A ddi t i onal l y , i n a s ecti on of the af fi davi tt i t l ed “Sei zur e of C om put er s an d D i gi t al E vi dence , ” the af fi davi tdes cr i bed the s or tof evi dence l i kel yt o be as s oci at ed w i t h cr i m es i nvol vi ng chil d p orn og raphy , i ncludi ng fl op pydis ks, hard dri ves, t apes, D V D s, a n d C D -R O M s, a n d e x p lain e d w h yit w a s n e c e ss a ryto s ei ze thes e i t ems and s ear ch them offs i t e. T he s ear ch al s o w as expec t ed t o pr oduce i t ems t hats how ed ow ner s hi p orus e of the c o m p u te rs a n d o w n e rs h ip o f th e h o m e . H ol l erand thr ee otheroffi cer s s er ved the w arr ant on t he d a y i t was i s s u e d

. Dur i n g t h e s e a r c h , Hol l e r e x p l a i n e d t he s ear ch w arr antt o T r ace yand hi s w i fe, i nfor m i ng t hem t hathe w a s s e a rc h in g f

o r c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . T ra c e y a lleg e d lyto ld10 H oll er t hat he m ay hav e acci den t al l y do w nloaded on e m o v ie co n tai n ing ch il d p o rno g rap h y . A fter a s ea rch o f th e d ef en d an t’ s hom e and t he s hop adj oi ni ng hi s hom e, t he off i cer s s ei zed: one wo r k i n g l a p t o p c o mp u t e r , o n e b r o k e n l a p t o p c o mp u t e r , t wo fl oppydi s ks , t w o comput ert ow er s w i t h pow ercor ds , one Sony vi deo ca s s et t e, fo u r ot hervi deot apes , one box of 19 vi deo cas s et t e t apes , and one bag of 19 vi deot apes . A ft erexami ni ng one of the com put ert ow er s , offi cer s r emoved 208 i m ages and 48 m ovi es a l l egedl ycont ai ni ng chi l d por nogr aphy

. T he C om m onw eal t h fi l ed cha r ges agai ns tT r ace y i n s t at e courtbas ed o n 1 8 9 im a g e s a n d 3 3 m o v ies th a t ita lleg e d c o n tain e d c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . St at e pr os ecut i on w as t hen t er m i nat ed i n favorof fe der al pr os ecut i on. A fede r al gr and j ur yi n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a re tur ned a tw o- counti ndi ct m entchar gi ng T r ace y w i t h r ece i vi ng and di s t r i but i ng chi l d por nogr aphyi n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )(2 )(A ) a n d p o ss e ss io n o f c h ild p o rno g rap h yin v iolati o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(5)(B ). T ra c e y e n ter e d a p lea o f n o t g u iltya n d w a s re lea se d su b jec t to c o n d itio n s . Tr a c e y t h e n f

i l e d a mot i o n t o s u p p r e s s , a r g u i n g t hat t he evi dence seize d pur s uantt o t he s ear ch w arr antm us tbe s uppr es s ed bec aus e t he w arr ant l acke d t he part i cul ar i t yr equi r ed by t he Four t h A m endment

. H e al s o as ked that h is s t at ement dur i ng t he s ear ch be s uppr es s ed as frui t s of t h is i l l egal s ear ch. T h e G o v ern m en t op p o sed the m o ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtT r ace y does not cont end thata di ffe r ents t andar d of r evi ew 4 app l i es t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fact ual det erm i nati on s becau se t hat C our t r el i ed on t he st at e court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa cti ns t ead of h o ld in g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , cf

. U ni t ed St at es v. W

i l s on , 413 F. 3d 382, 385–86 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and, i n any ca se, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a re u n d is p u te d

.

11 gr ant ed t h e m ot i on t o s uppr es s , and the G overnm entfi l ed a tim e ly ap p e a l.
I I

. D i s cus s i on T he D i s t r i ctC o u rthad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over t hi s cr i m i nal cas e pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 3 2 3 1

. W e have a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 1

. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant a mot i on to s u p p re s s u n d e r a m ix e d s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . C ra n d e ll , 5 5 4 F .3 d 7 9 , 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e re v iew its fi ndi ngs of fact for cl ear err or , but exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s . S e e id

. 4
A . D id th e W

a rr a n t In c o rp o ra te th e A ffi da v it o f P ro b a b le C aus e? B efor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , t he G overnm entconce ded that t he desc r i pt i on of t he i t ems t o be sea r ched for and sei zed i n t he a p p lic a tio n (a n d th e re f

o re th e w a rra n t) lac k e d th e p a rticu lar ity12 r equi r ed byt he Four t h A m endment unl es s the aff i davi tof pr obabl e ca us e w as inco rpora t ed. O n appea l , i tcont ends t hat H o ller d id e v e ry th in g h e c o u ld to in c o rp o ra te th e a f f id a v it i n to the w arran t w ith in the co n fin es o f the fo rm an d that the s tand ard lan g u a g e o n th e w a rra n t ex p li c itl yin c o rp o ra ted th e a f f id a v it. T r ace y r es ponds t hat H ol l er fai l ed t o i ncorpor at e the af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e i nt o t he w arr ant , and thus t he af fi davi tdoes not c u re th e w a rr a n t’ s la c k o f p a rt ic u la ri ty. T he Four t h A m endment t o t he C ons t i tut i on guarant ees t h e “ rig h t of t he p eop l e t o b e secure i n thei r per sons, ho uses, p a p e rs , a n d e f

f e c ts, ag ains t un rea s o n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s .” U

. S. C ons t
. amend. I V

. I t di r ect s t hat “no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath or aff i r m at i on, and par t i cul ar l ydes cr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be s ear ched and t he per s ons or t hi ngs t o be s ei zed. ” I d. “ T h e re q u ire m e n t th a t w a rra n ts s h a ll par t i cul ar l ydes cr i be the thi ngs t o be s ei zed makes gener al s ear ches undert hem i m pos s i bl e and pr event s t he s ei zur e of one t hi ng under a w arrantdes cr i bi ng another

. A s t o w hati s t o be t aken, not hi ng i s l eftt o t he di s cr et ion o f t he off i cerexec ut i ng t h e warr a n t
. ” Ma rron v. U ni t ed Stat es , 275 U

. S. 192, 196 ( 1927)

. A l ong w i t h pr event i ng gener al s ear che s , the p arti cu lari tyreq u ir em en t serve s tw o o ther f u n cti o n s. It “mem or i al i zes pr eci s el yw hats ear ch ors ei zur e the i s s ui ng m agi s t r at e i nt ended t o per m i t , ” G r oody , 3 6 1 F. 3 d a t 2 3 9, and i nfor m s t he s ubj ectof t he sea r ch “of t he l aw ful author i t yof the exec ut i ng offi cer , hi s need t o s ear ch, and the l i m i t s of hi s pow er t o s ear ch, ” G r oh v. R am i r ez , 5 4 0 U

. S

. 5 5 1 , 5 6 1 (20 0 4 ) ( quot i ngO f co u rse, t he Four t h A m endment does notr equi r e the 5 offi cert o pr ovi de a c opyof the w arr antt o t he s ubj ectbefor e he c o n d u c ts th e s e a rc h

. See U ni t ed Stat es v. G r ubbs , 547 U

. S. 90, 9 8

– 9 9 (2 0 0 6 ); G r oh , 5 4 0 U .S . a t 5 6 2 n .5

. 13 U ni t ed Stat es v. C hadw i ck , 4 3 3 U

. S

. 1 , 9 (19 7 7 )). 5
A l ong w i t h ot herC our t s of A ppeal s , w e have he l d t hatan aff i davi tm aybe us ed i n det er m i ni ng t he scope of a w arr antt hat lac k s p a rticu lar ityif

th e w a rra n t is “a c c o m p a n ied b ya n a f f id a v it t hati s i ncorpor at ed byr efe r ence . ” U ni t ed S tates v. Johns on , 6 9 0 F

. 2 d 6 0 , 6 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ); s ee al s o G r oh , 540 U

. S. at 557–58 ( “[M ] os tC our t s of A ppeal s have he l d t hata courtm ay cons t rue a w arr ant w i t h r efe r ence t o a suppor t i ng appl i cat i on or aff i davi ti f t he w arr antus es appr opr i at e w or ds of i ncorpor at i on, an d if t h e su p p o rt ing d o cu m en t acc o m p an ies t h e w arran t. ”). “[T] o t ake a dvant age of t hi s pr i nci pl e of i nt erpr et at i on, t he w arr antm us t expre s s l yi ncorpor at e the af fi davi t , ” and the i ncorpor ati on m us tbe “c l ear . ” G r oody , 3 6 1 F .3 d a t 2 3 9 ; s ee a lso B a rth o lo m e w v . P e n n sy lva n ia , 2 2 1 F .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 2 8

– 2 9 & n .4 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 00)

. A s w i t h t he part i cul ar i t yr equi r ement , t he pr i m arypurpos es of thi s i ncorpor at i on rul e ar e t o “l im itt he [off i cer s ’ ] di s cre ti o n as t o w hatt heyar e ent i t l ed t o s ei ze” and

“ in f o rm th e s u b

je c t o f th e s e a rc h w h a t c a n b e s e iz e d .” B ar thol om ew , 2 2 1 F .3 d a t 4 2 9

. T he i s s ue, t hen, i s w hethert he w arr anti ncorpor at ed the a f f i d a v i t
. W e a r e g u i d e d i n t h i s r e g a r d b y D oe v. G r oody

.14 T here, a m otherand dau gh t er br ou gh ta § 1 98 3 acti on against offi cer s w ho s ear ched them duri ng a s ear ch of thei rhom e. 361 F. 3d at236–37. A l t hough t he off i cer s sear ched pur s uantt o a w a rra n t, th e f

a c e o f th e w a rra n t o n lya u th o r iz e d th e o f f ice rs to s e a rc h th e h o m e a n d th e m a le re s id e n t o f th e h o m e . Id

. at236, 2 3 9 . T h e o f

f ice rs, re c o g n izin g th a t th e f a c e o f th e w a rra n t d id notauthor i ze them t o s ear ch the femal es , ar gued t hat t he s cope of t he w arr ant sh oul d be cons t rued w i t h r efe r ence t o t he acc om pany i ng aff

i davi t , w hi ch di d r eques tper m i s s i on t o s ear ch a ll o c c u p a n ts o f

th e h o u s e . Id . a t 2 3 9

. W e h e ld th a t th e w a rra n t h a d n o t “e x p re ss ly i ncorpor at e[d] ” t he affi davi t s o as t o per m i tt hi s cons t ruct i on of th e w a rr a n t. I

d. T he w arr ants peci fi cal l yr efe r r ed t o t he aff i davi ti n r es pons e t o t he quest i ons aboutt he dat e of the vi ol at i on and the s uppor t i ng pr obabl e ca us e, butdi d notm ent i on t he af fi davi ti n r es pons e t o t he ques t i on conce r ni ng t he pr emi s es o r p e o p le to b e s e a rc h e d

. I d. at239. T hatt he af

fi davi tw as expr es s l yr efe r ence d i n cert ai n s ect i ons “demonstr at e[d] t hat w h e re th e f

a c e sh e e t w a s in ten d e d to in c o rp o ra te th e a f f id a v it, i ts ai d s o expl i ci t l y . ” I

d. T h u s , “ th e a b se n c e o f a re f e re n c e to t he af fi davi t ” i n t he s ect i on des cr i bi ng t he pr emi s es and per s ons to b e s e a rc h e d “ n e g a t[ e d ] a n yin c o rp o ra tio n o f th a t a f f id a v it.” Id

. at240. I n contr as t , w e have h el d t hati ncl udi ng t he s t at ement “s ee Exhi bi tA s eal ed byO r derof the C our t ” i n t he i t ems- t o- bese ize d se c tio n o f

th e w a rr a n t in c o rp o ra ted th a t ex h ib itH o w ev er, be ca u se E x h ibitA w as s e a led , the C o u rt 6 concl uded that i t coul d not be used t o cons t rue the s cope of t he w a rr a n t. See i d. at429–30. I n t hatcont ext , t he w arr antl acke d th e p a rt ic u la ri ty re q u ir e d b yth e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. See i d. W e h av e re q u ir ed inco rpo rati o n to b e e x p li citw h en o ff icers 7 se e k to u se th e a f

f id a v it eith e r t o b ro a d e n th e w a rra n t o r to n a rr o w it. S ee G r oody , 3 6 1 F

. 3 d at 23 9

– 4 0 (bro ad en ing ); Johns on , 690 F. 2d at 64–66 ( narr ow i ng)

. W e have noti ndi cat ed that there w o u ld b e re aso n to a p p ly a l ess e x ac ti n g stan d ard w hen the off

i cer s s eek t o us e the af

fi davi tto n arr ow t he s cope o f th e w a rr a n t. 15 c o n ta in in g a lis t o f

it e m s t o b e s e iz e d

. See Barthol om ew , 221 F .3 d a t 4 2 9 ; se e a lso B a rth o lo m e w v . P e n n sy lva n ia , N o. 97- 5 6 8 4 , 1 9 9 9 W L 4 1 5 4 0 6 , a t * 1 (E .D . P a . J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 ), rev ’d , 221 F. 3d 425. Si m i l ar l y , w e hel d an af fi davi tw as i ncorpor at ed 6 w her e the w arr ant“di r ect [ed] t he pol i ce o ff icer s t o s ear ch the defe ndant ’ s pr emi s es ‘ for

. . . evi dence w hi ch i s s peci fi ed i n t he annexe d aff

i davi t
. ’ ” U

ni t ed St at es v. Johns on , 690 F. 2d at64. 7 O t her C our t s of A ppeal s h ave acc ept ed phra s es s uch as “att ache d aff

i davi t w hi ch i s i ncorpor at ed her ei n, ” “s ee a t t ache d aff i davi t , ” and “des cr i bed i n t he af fi davi t , ” as s ui t abl e w or ds of in c o rp o ra tio n . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

aker , 534 F. 3d 168, 1 7 2 n .2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. McG r ew , 122 F. 3d 847, 8 4 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); U

nit ed Stat es v. C urry , 911 F. 2d 72, 76–77 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ).16 H er e, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t

— al bei tfor d if f e re n t re a so n s— th a t th e w a rra n t d id n o t ad e q u a tely i ncorpor at e the af

fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e. T he fa ce s heetof t he appl i cat i on and the w arr ant do not cont ai n anyexpl i ci tw or ds o f i n c o rp o r a t i o n . M o r e i mp o r t a n t l y , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i t e ms to b e se a rc h e d f

o r a n d se ize d d o e s n o t in c o rp o ra te th e a f f id a v it. T he fi r s tr efe r ence t o t he af fi davi ton t h e ap p li cat i on and w arr antr equi r es t hat t he aff i davi t be at t ache d t o t he appl i cat i on and as ks fort he t ot al num berof page s . T he box i s chec ked and “7” i s handw r i t t en i n t he bl ank. H ow ever , t hese m arki ngs do nots ugges tt hatt he des cr i pt i on of the i t ems t o be s ei zed i s t o be r ead i n conj unct i on w it h the af fi davi t
. T he s econd r efe r ence ap p ea rs i n the S ea rch W arran t secti o n o f th e f o rm , w h ere pr epr i nt ed w or ds s t at e thatt he M agi str ate J udge has found pr obabl e ca us e fr om t he “f act s [that ] have been sw or n t o or a f f ir m e d b e f

o re m e b y w ri tte n a f

f id a v it( s ) a tta c h e d h e r e to .” A gai n, t hi s s t at ement gi ves no i ndi cat i on t hatt he i t ems- t o- bes e iz e d s e c tio n is to b e re a d w ith re f e re n c e to th e a f

f id a v it. See G r oh , 540 U

. S. at555 ( r ej ec t i ng a s i m i l ars t at ement as i ns uffi ci entt o i ncorpor at e the appl i cat i on oraff i davi tof p ro b a b le c a u s e in to th e w a rra n t); see al so C urry , 911 F. 2d at 7 6

– 7 7 (f

in d in g th e f

o llo w in g lan g u a g e in su f f ici e n t to i ncorporate t he af

fi davi t : “W her eas , t he appl i cat i on and su p p o rtin g a f

f id a v it o f

D e t. R o ss S w a n so n [ w e re ] d u ly pr es ent ed and r ead by t he C our t , and bei ng ful l yadvi s ed i n t he p re m ise s . . . .” ). T h u s th e o n lytw o re f e re n c e s to th e a f

f id a v it fa il to inc o rpo rate e x p resslythe a ff idav itinto the w arran t’ s des cr i pt i on of the i t ems t o be sea r ched f orand s ei zed i f found.17 T h e G o v e rn m e n t a rg u e s th a t H o ller d id a ll h e c o u ld to i ncorpor at e the af

fi d av i tbychec ki ng t he box, w r i t i ng i n t he num berof page s , at t achi ng i t t o t he appl i cat i on and w arr ant , and s i gni ng below t he pr epr i nt ed l anguage . B uti f H ol l eri nt ended t o i ncorpor at e the af

fi davi ti nt o t he des cr i pt i on of i t em s to be s ei zed, he coul d have w r i t t en “s ee a ffi davi t , ” “a s fur t her des cr i bed i n t he af

fi davi t , ” oranyot herw or ds of i ncorpor at i on. T hi s r equi r ement i s notdi ffi cul t , y et i t w ent unm et i n t hi s cas e. T he G over nm en t ’ s o t h e r a r g u ment s r egar di ng i nco rporat i on are unp ers uasi ve. Itcorr ect l yargues t hat this case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m G r oh beca us e the w arr antt here cont ai ned no w or ds of i ncorpor at i on and nei t hert he appl i cat i on nort he af

fi davi tacc om pani ed t he w arr ant
. 540 U

. S. at557–58. B u t th is argu m en t do es n o t help the G o v ern m en t — o u r C o u rt r equi r es cl ear w or ds of i ncorpor at i on t o cur e a w arr antl acki ng p a rt ic u la ri ty. T h e G o v ern m en t al so co n tend s tha t th e D is tr ict C o u rt fai l ed t o r ec o g n i ze thatt he appl i cat i on and w arr antar e one document pur s uantt o t he Penns y l v ani a R ul es of C r i m i nal P ro c e d u re . T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t, un d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia pr act i ce, t he des cr i pt i on of t he i t ems t o be s ei zed i s t o be l i s t ed i n t he af fi davi t , nott he appl i cat i on, an d t he af fi davi tm us tbe s e rv e d w ith th e w a rr a n t. See P a. R

. C ri m . P

. 2 0 5 a n d 2 0 6

. It pos i t s t hatt hi s pr act i ce s er ves t he purpos e of the i ncorpor at i on rul e bypr ovi di ng t he age nt s and the s ubj ect w it h n ot i ce of t he l i m i t s of the s ear ch. T hi s ar gum enti gnores that t heT hes e w or ds of i ncorpor at i on need n o t be i ncl uded i n t he 8 s ect i on l acki ng par t i cul ar i t y , as l ong as the w or ds of i ncorpor at i on i n t he w arr ant m ake cl ear t hat t he s ect i on i s t o be re a d w ith re f

e re n c e to th e a f

f id a v it. 18 Penns y l v a n i a Rul e s , i n acc or dance w i t h t he fe der al C ons t i tut i on, a ls o re q u ire th a t th e se a rc h w a rra n t it se lf “ id e n tifysp e c if

ica lly t he pr oper t yt o be s ei zed” and “de s cr i be w i t h par t i cul ar i t yt he per s on orpl ace t o be s ear ched. ” See P a . R . C ri m . P . 2 0 5

. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatforan af fi davi tt o cur e a w arr ant ’ s l ack of par t i cul ar i t y , t he w or ds of i ncorpor at i on i n t he w a rra n t m u st m a k e c lea r th a t th e se c tio n lac k in g p a rticu lar ityis to b e re a d in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith th e a tt a c h e d a f f id a v it. M e re ly

8 r efe r enci ng t he att ache d aff i davi ts om ew her e i n t h e w arr ant w i t houtexpr es s l yi ncorpor at i ng i t does not s uffi ce. I n t hi s cas e, a r eade rof t he w arr ant w oul d know t hat an affi davi t i s at t ache d, b u t w o u ld h a v e n o in d ica tio n th a t th e a ttac h e d a f f id a v it l im its t he off i cer s i n t hei rs ear ch. B eca use t he w arr antdi d not expl i c i t l y i n c o rp o r a t e t h e a f f i d a v i t o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e i n t o t he des cr i pti o n o f t he i t ems t o be s ear ched f orand s ei zed, t he w a rr a n t’ s la c k o f

p a rt ic u la ri ty is n o t c u re d b yth e a f f id a v it.
B

. The Scope of

the Act ualSear ch
T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s a lte r n a tiv e a rg u m e n t is th a t, ev e n if t he af fi davi tw er e not i ncorpor at ed i nt o t he w arr ant , i t s l ack of par t i cul ar i t yw as cur ed bec aus e the af fi davi tacc om pani ed the19 w arran t, and t he s ear ch w as confi ned t o t he narr ow ers cope of th e a f f id a v it. See, e. g. , L e v e to , 540 F. 3d at211. H ow ever , t he G o v ern m en t w aive d this argu m en t byfa ilin g to raise itb ef o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. A s uppr es s i on ar gum entr ai s ed fort he fi r s t ti m e on a p p e a l is w a iv e d u n le s s g o o d c a u s e is s h o w n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R ose , 53 8 F .3d 1 75 , 18 2 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T hu s w e m ustfi rs t d eterm ine if th e a rgu m en t w as r a is e d b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt or, i n the a l t ernat i ve, i f t he G ov ernm ent has s ho w n g oo d cau se f o r f a ilin g to ra is e th e a rg u m e n t e a rl ie r. I n G r oody w e re c o g n ize d th a t o th e r C o u rts o f A p p e a ls al l ow t w o exce pt i ons to t he gene r al rul e r equi r i ng t hatt he aff i davi tbe i ncorpor at ed i nt o t he w arr ant
. 361 F. 3d at 240. T he fi r s texce pt i on al l ow s a courtt o ref ere nce a n uni ncorpor at ed aff i davi tw hen the w arr antcont ai ns “an a m bi gui t y ” or a cl er i cal e rr o r t h a t c o u ld b e c la ri f ie d b yth e a f

f id a v it. I d. T he s econd exce pt i on pr ovi des t hatan uni ncorpor at ed af fi davi tcan c ur e an over l ybr oad w arr anti f th e ac tual s ear ch i s r es t r i ct ed t o t he n a rr o w e r s c o p e o f

th e a f f id a v it. I d. W e dec l i ned t o appl yt he s econd except i on i n G r oody beca us e the ca s e i nvol ved an aff i davi tand a n actual s ear ch thatw er e br oaderi n s cope than th e te rm s o f

th e w a rr a n t. I

d. at 2 4 1

. W e em phas i zed the d istin c tio n b e tw e e n a llo w in g a n u n in c o rp o ra ted a f f id a v it t o br oaden, r athert han l i m i t , t he s cope of t he s ear ch perm i t t ed by th e w a rr a n t. I

d. (“ [ T ]h e o f

f ice rs s e e k to u s e th e a f f id a v it t o expand, r atherthan l i m i t , t he w arr ant
. T hatm akes al l t he20 di ffe r ence . . . . [I ] ti s one thi ng i f off i cer s us e l ess t han the a u th o ritye rro n e o u slyg ra n ted b ya ju d g e . I t is q u ite a n o th e r if offi cer s go beyond

th e a u th o ri ty g ra n te d b yth e ju d g e .” (e m p h a s e s in o ri g in a l) ).
B uti n ourcas e, t he G overnm ent di d notar gue bef or e the D i s t r i c tCou r tt h a tt h e warr a n tc o u l d b e c u r e d b yt h e n a r r o w er aff i davi tand t he ac tual s ear ch eve n i f the af fi davi tw er e not inco rpo rated into the w arran t. A fo o tno te i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n sh o w s th a t th e C o u rt d id n o t b e liev e th is a rg u m e n t w a s b e f

o re it. See U

ni t ed St at es v. Trac ey , N o. 1: 08- 1 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 W L 2622908, at*4 n. 4 ( M

. D

. Pa. J une 30, 2008) (“W e d o n o t exp lore w h ethe r O r t ega- Ji m eneza n d c a se s lik e it m i ghtal l ow us t o r el yon t he uni ncorpor at ed af fi davi t [, ] as t he g o v e r n m e n td o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t i n c o rp o r a t i o n i s n o tn e c e s s a r y, pr efe r r i ng i ns t ead t o cont end thati ncorpor at i on i n t he appl i cat i on i s al l t hati s neede d. ”)

. T hi s ar gum ent i s t hus w ai ved u n les s th e G o v e rn m e n t ca n sh o w g o o d c a u se f o r its f a ilu re to ra is e it. See R ose , 5 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 2

. T he G ov ern m ent ar gu es that i thad go od cause b ecause U n itedS ta tes v . L e v e to — the f ir st de c is io n in o u r C o u rt uphol di ng t he us e of the s econd e xcept i on di s cus s ed i n G r oody

— w as fi l ed af

t ert he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Trac ey . See L e v e to , 5 4 0 F .3 d a t 2 1 1

– 1 2 . H o w e v e r , th e G o v e rn m e n t ea sily coul d have di s t i ngui s hed G r oody i n i t s ar gum entt o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt b efor e L e v e to w as i s s ued. E ven a c ur s or yr evi ew of G r oody r evea ls tha ti tr ecogni zed the exc ept i on ati s s ue, butT ra c e y arg u e s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t m a k e c e rta in 9 ar gum ent s i n favorof th e good fa i t h exce pt i on befor e the D istri ct C o u rt , an d there b y also w aive d them o n ap p ea l. B ef o re t hatC our t , how ever , t he G overnm ent cont ended thatt he good fai th exce pt i on appl i ed bec aus e exclu d ing the s ei zed e vi dence i n t hi s cas e w oul d not det erm i s conductw her e H ol l ercoul d have r eas onabl yr el i ed on t he val i di t y of t he w arr ant , bel i evi ng t hathe h a d in c o rp o ra ted th e a ttac h e d a f f id a v it in to th e w a r r a n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the g o o d f a ith a rg u m e n t w a s n o t w a iv e d a n d w ill b e a d d re s s e d o n th e m e ri ts
. 21 concl uded t hat i t coul d not be appl i ed t o expand t he s cope of

a w a rr a n t. See 361 F. 3d at240–41. O uropi ni on i n G r oody pr ovi ded the G overnm entw i t h t he author i t yi tneede d t o m ake t hi s ar gum ent , buti tfai l ed t o do s o. T he G overnm enthas not sh o w n a g o o d re a so n f o r th is fa ilu re , a n d , a c c o rd in g ly , it s a rg u m e n t is w a iv e d o n a p p e a l. See R ose , 5 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 2

. C

. The G ood Fai th E

xce pt i on B efor e t he D i s t r i ct C our t , t he G overnm entconce ded that t he des cript i on of t he i t ems t o be s ei zed on the fa ce of t he w a rra n t d id n o t m e e t th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s p a rticu lar ity r equi r ement unl es s i tw as con s t rued w i t h r efe r ence t o t he n arro w er a ff

idav it

. In th e e v en t th at t h e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatt he w arr antdi d not i ncorpor at e t he af fi davi t , t he G overnm entcont ended thatt he good fa i t h exce pt i on to t he e x c lu sio n a ryru le a p p lied

. T h e C o u rt r e jec ted th is a rg u m e n t, 922 hol di ng t hatt he good fai t h exce pt i on di d not appl ybeca us e the w arr antw as gener al and the des cri p ti on of the i t ems t o be s ear ched f

orand s ei zed w as “s o fac i al l ydefe ct i ve thatno rea s onabl e pol i ce of

fi cers houl d have r el i ed on i t
. ” Tr acey , 2 0 0 8 W L 2 6 2 2 9 0 8 , a t * 5

. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , t he Supr eme C our tr ecogni zed t hat the purpos e of the exc l us i onaryrul e — t o det erpol i ce m i s conduct— w oul d not be fur t her ed bys uppr es s i ng evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng a s ear ch “w hen an offi ceract i ng w i t h obj ect i ve good fai t h has obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfr o m a judge or m agi s t r at e and a ct ed w i t hi n i t s s cope. ” 468 U

. S. 897, 919–20 ( 1984)

. T he C our texpl ai ned that“[i ] n the or di narycas e, an offi cercannotbe expe ct ed t o ques t i on th e ma g i s tr a t e ’ s pr obabl ecaus e det er m i nat i on orhi s j udgm entt hatt he form of t he w arr ant i s t echni cal l ys uffi ci ent
. ” I d. at921; s ee al

s o M as s achus et t

s v. Sh epp ard , 468 U

. S. 981, 988–90 ( 1984) ( hol di ng t hatt he good fai th exce pt i on appli ed i n a ca s e w her e the w arr antl acke d par t i cul ar i t ybeca us e the off i cer s r eas onabl y b el i eved the w a rra n t w a s v a lid ). T h u s “ e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e su p p re ss e d ‘o n ly i f i tcan be s ai d t hatt he l aw enfor cementoffi cer had know l edge, orm aypr oper l ybe cha r ged w i t h know l edge, t hatt he s ear ch w as uncons t i tut i onal undert he F o u rth A m endment

. ’ ” Her r i ng v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 9 S

. C t. 6 9 5 , 7 0 1

– 0 2 (20 0 9 ) ( quot i ng I l l i nois v. Kru ll , 4 8 0 U .S . 3 4 0 , 3 4 8

– 4 9 (1 9 8 7 ))

. Acc o r d i n g l y , a d e t e rmi nat i on t hatt he Four t h A m endment has been vi ol at ed does notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e appl i cat i on of the23 e x c lu s io n a ry ru le

. Id

. a t 7 0 0 ; s ee al s o Leon , 468 U

. S. at919–20. It a p p lies w h e n it se rv e s “ to sa f e g u a rd F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts

. . . t hr ough i t s det err enteff ect
. ” U nit ed S t ates v. C alandra , 414 U .S

. 3 3 8 , 3 4 8 (1 9 7 4 ). T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r t o a p p ly th e r u le i n a part i cul arcas e, w e w ei gh t he bene fi t s of the rul e’ s det err ent eff ect s agai ns tt he cos t s of exc l us i on, w hich incl ude “l et t i ng gui l t yand pos s i bl ydanger ous defe ndant s go free. ” Her r i ng , 12 9 S. C t. at 7 0 0 , 701. B eca us e of the hi gh s oci al cos t s of excl udi ng evi dence i n a cr im i nal cas e, t he Supr eme C our thas i ns t ruct ed thatt he exc l us i onaryrul e s houl d on ly b e appl i ed w hen “poli ce c onduct[i s ]

. . . s uffi ci ent l ydel i ber at e that e x c lu sio n c a n m e a n in g f u llyd e ter it, a n d su f

f icie n tlyc u lp a b le thats uch det err ence i s w or t h t he pr i ce pa i d byt he j us t i ce s y s t em. ” I

d. at702. A ccor di ngl y , w e appl yt he rul e w hen pol i ce conducti s “del i ber at e, r eckl es s , or gr os s l ynegl i gent , ” orw hen i tw i l l det er“r ecurr i ng ors y s t emi c negl i gence . ” I d. Put another w ay , i s o l a t e d n e g l i g e n t a c t s o n t h e p a r t o f t h e p o l i c e do not w a rr a n t a p p lic a tio n o f

th e e x c lu s io n a ry ru le

. See i d. W e h a v e p re v io u slyre c o g n iz e d th a t th e g o o d f a ith excep t i on do es not applyi n fo ur l i m i t ed cir cum st ances: 1) w her e t he m agi s t r at e j udge i s s ued the w arr ant i n rel i ance o n a d el i berat el yor r eckles sl yfal se a f f id a v it; 2) w her e the magi s t r at e j udge aba ndoned hi s or her j udi ci al r ol e and fai l ed t o per for m hi s or her24 n e u tra l an d d e tac h e d f

u n c tio n ; 3) w here the w arr ant w as based o n an affidavi tso l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e caus e as t o r ender o f f ic ia l b e lief

in its e x iste n c e e n tirely u n rea so n ab le; o r 4) w her e t he w arr ant w as s o fac i al l ydefi ci entt hat it fai l ed t o par t i cul ar i ze the pl ace t o be s ear ched ort he thi ngs t o be s ei zed. U n it ed Stat es v. Zi m m er m an , 2 7 7 F

. 3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 6

– 3 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 246 F. 3d 3 0 1 , 3 0 8 ( 3d C i r . 2001) )

. T hes e l i m i t ed exc ept i ons ar e cons i s t ent w i t h the appr oach t aken i n Her r i ngbeca us e ea ch of t hes e ci r cumst ance s in v o lv e c o n d u c t th a t is “ d e lib e ra te, re c k les s, o r g ro ss ly negl i gent , ” and thus t he bene fi t s of det err i ng futur e mi s conduct

“ o u tw e ig h t h e c o s ts ” o f e x c lu d in g th e e v id e n c e . Her r i ng , 129 S. C t
. at700, 702. I n t hi s cas e, the D ist ri ct C our tdet er m i ned th a t th e f o u rth e x c e p tio n a p p lied b e c a u se th e w a rra n t f a iled to p a rt ic u la ri z e th e ite m s to b e s e iz e d

. W e partpaths her e. T he des cr i pt i on of the i t ems t o be se a rc h e d f

o r a n d se ize d w a s a s f

o llo w s: A nyi t ems , i m ages , orvi s ual depi ct i ons r epr es ent i ng t he pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en in c lu d in g v id e o ta p e s o r p h o to g ra p h s .W e r ecogni ze, as t he D i s t r i ct C our t did, t h at H ol l er 10 i ncorpor at ed the pr obl emat i c des cr i pt i on i n t he w arr anti nt o t he a f f id a v it. H o w e v e r, th e w o rd s o f in c o rp o ra tio n in th e a f f id a v it are s uccee ded byt he fo l l ow i ng sen ten ce: “P ossess i on of these it em s are eit h er in a n d o f th em selv es a crim e o r th eyare /w ere ut i l i zed t o comm i ta cr i m e, t o w i t , Sexual abus e of c hi l dr en, 18 PA

. C

. S. A

. s ect i on 6312( c) , ( d)

. ” R eadi ng the sent ence s t ogether , t he d e s c r i p t i o n i n c o rpor at ed fr om t he w arr anti s l i m i t ed byt he l anguage i ndicat i ng t hatt he off i cer s w er e s eeki ng 25 C O M PU T E R S: C om put eri nput and output devi ces t o i ncl ude bu tno tl i m i t ed t o keybo ards, m i ce, scanne rs , pri nter s, m on i t ors, netw or k comm uni cat i on devi ces, m odems and e xt ernal or connec t ed devi ces us ed foracc es s i ng comput ers t or age medi a. T he G o v ern m en t con ce d ed that the p h rase “p os s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en” w as over l y br oad. H ow ever , in the at t ache d aff i davi t , H oll er w r ot e thathe “e xpect [ed] t o fi nd w i t hi n t he r es i dence

. . . i t ems w hi ch ar e/w er e us ed t o comm i tt he cr i m e of S e x u a l A b u s e o f C h ild re n , to w it, C .S .A . s e c tio n 6 3 1 2 (c ), ( d ).” T h e d etail ed af

fid av italso inclu d ed the s p ec ifi c d igit al si g n ature of t he vi deo of a n adult m al e havi ng vagi nal s ex w i t h a mi nor fe m al e, and expl ai ned w hys ei zur e of the comput erequi pm ent w as nece s s ary . W h en rea d w i t h r efe r ence t o t he att ache d a f f id a v it, it i s c lea r th a t th e w a rra n t au th o riz e d th e o f f ice rs to s ear ch forevi dence of vi ol at i ons of 18 Pa. C ons . S tat
. A nn. § 6312( c) and ( d)

. T he att ache d aff i davi t , t her efor e, pr ovi des th e p a rticu lar ityn e c e ss a ry to sa tisf yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 10per m i s s i on to sea rch f orand s ei ze e vi dence of vi ol at i ons of a sp e c if ic s tatu te’ s s u b se c tio n s. A c c o rd in g ly , the a f f id a v it p a rt ic u la rl y d e s c ri b e d th e ite m s to b e s e a rc h e d f o r a n d s e iz e d

.
26 T hough t he G overnm entconce ded thatt he l ack of part icul ar i t yon t he fa ce of t he s ear ch w arr antvi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment , w e bel i eve t hatH ol l ercoul d have re a so n a b lyre lied o n th e w a rra n t b e c a u se a re a so n a b le o f f ice r in hi s pos i t i on w oul d as s um e t hat t he w arr ant i ncorpor at ed and w oul d be construed w i t h t he att ache d aff i davi t
. A s not ed above , i n G r oody w e hel d t hata w arr ant m us t “expr es s l yi ncorpor at e” a n a f f id a v it i n o rd e r f

o r th e w a rra n t to b e c o n stru e d w ith r efe r ence t o t he af

fi davi t
. 3 6 1 F

. 3 d at239. H er e, H ol l er chec ked the box i ndi cat i ng t hatt he pr obabl e ca us e af fi davi tw as at t ache d and ha n d w rot e the number “7” t o i ndi cat e the t ot al n u m b e r o f

p a g e s. N o tab ly , th is lan g u a g e re q u ire d th e a f f id a v it t o be att ached u n less i tw as s eal ed. N ext , H ol l erand the M agi s t r at e Judge s i gned and the M agi s t r at e J udge s eal ed ea ch page of t he s even- page a ffi davi t , w hi ch w as att ac h ed t o t he w a rr a n t. G i ven the form atof the Penns y l vani a for m H ol l erus ed, a r e a s o n a b l e p o l i c e o f

f i c e ri n Hol l e r ’ s p o s i t i o n mi g h ta s s u me t hathe had i n fac t“expr es s l y ” i ncorpor at ed the affi davi tby chec ki ng t he boxes r egar di ng t he af fi davi tand att achi ng t he a f f id a v it to th e w a rra n t. E v e n th o u g h w e c o n c lu d e th e se e f f o rts w e re n o t le g a lly su f

f icie n t b e c a u se th e w a rra n t d o e s n o t cle a rlyT he r eas onabl enes s of H ol l er ’ s bel i ef i s s uppor t ed byt he 11 fac tt hatt he C our tof C o m m on Pl eas J udge, w ho rul ed on T r ace y ’ s pr etr i al m ot i ons i n s tat e cour t , concl uded thatt he des cr i pt i on of t he i t ems t o be s ei zed i n t he w arr antm us tbe r ead w ith re f e re n c e to th e a f

f id a v it o f p ro b a b le c a u s e . 27 in d ica te th a t th e item s-to -b e -se ize d se c tio n is to b e re a d w ith re f e re n c e to th e a ttac h e d a f f id a v it, a n o f

f ice r c o u ld under s t andabl ybel i eve that he had met t he r equi r ement s of the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. See U n itedS ta tes v . C a rd a ll , 773 F. 2d 11 1128, 1133 ( 10t h C i r . 1985) ( “[I ] t m us t
. . . be r emem ber ed that the k n o w ledg e a n d u n d e rst an d ing o f law en fo rce m en t of fice rs and thei rappr eci at i on forcons t i tut i onal i nt r i cac i es ar e nott o be j udged b y the s t andar ds appl i cabl e t o l aw y er s . ”)

. O urcas es r ecogni ze thatan i ncorpor at ed aff i davi tm aynarr ow t he s cope o f a w a rra n t, an d it w o u ld b e re a so n a b le f o r a n o f f ice r in H o ll e r ’s p o sitio n to b e liev e th e a f f id a v it w a s p ro p e rly in c o rp o ra te d a n d , th e re f o re , th e w a rr a n t w a s v a lid

. See U ni t ed St at es v. H

am il t on , 5 9 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 6 , 1 0 2 8

– 2 9 (8th C ir

. 2010) ( fi ndi ng t hatt he good fai t h exce pt i on appl i ed even t hough t he fa ce of

w arr antl acke d part iculari t y , and i tw as uncl ear w hethert he af

fi davi t w as i ncorpor at ed i nt o t he des cr i pt i on of th e item s to b e se ize d , b e c a u se th e o f f ic e r h a d a n o b

jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e bel i ef t hat t he w arr ant and i t s r efe r ence to t he a f f id a v it a u th o ri z e d th e s e a rc h ).
I n a d d i t i o n t o h o l d i n g a r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f t h a tt he w arr anti ncorpor at ed the nar r ow er aff i davi t , H ol l er ’ s us e of the28 ph rase “pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en” on the fa ce of t he w arr antdoes not m ake i t“s o fac i al l ydefi ci ent ” thatno r eas onabl e o ff

icer coul d r el yon i t
. T he s ect i on bel ow t he des cr i pt i on of t he i t ems t o be s ei zed a nd t he pr emi s es t o be se a rc h e d is titl e d “ V io latio n o f ,” a n d d ir e c ts th e a p p lica n t to “[d] es cr i be conduc tors peci fys tat u te
. ” I n r es pons e, H ol l er w r ot e i n “6312( c) , ( d) PA C r i m es C ode, ” i dent ify ing t he Penns y l vani a st at ut e cr i m i nal i zi ng t he di s s emi nat i on and pos s es s i on of m edi a cont ai ni ng depi ct i ons of “a chi l d undert he age of 18 y ear s engagi ng i n a prohi bi t ed sexua l act
. ” See 18 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. § 6312. T he w arr antal s o i dent i fi es t he dat e of t he vi ol at i on as J anuary9, 2006 — t he daythe off i cerfound the v id e o o f a n a d u lt m a le h a v in g v a g in a l se x w ith a m in o r f e m a le b ys e a rc h in g th e p e e r- to -p e e r n e tw o rk s . In th is c o n te x t, a r eas onabl e off

i cercoul d r el yon t he val i di t yof the w arr anti f he bel i eved that t he phr as e “pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of c h i l dr en” w oul d be r ead i n conj unct i on w i t h t he s t atut e, and thus t he type of expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en t hey w er e author i zed t o s earch for w as l i m i t ed t o s exual abus e of chi l dr en i n vi ol at i on of § 6312( c) a n d (d ). A r eas onabl e off

i cerw oul d al so h av e conf i dence i n t he val i di t yof the w arr ant aft erpr es ent i ng i tand havi ng i tappr oved bya di s t r i ctat t or ney and t he M agi s t r at e J udge, as occurr ed her e. See, e. g. , U

nit ed Stat es v. O t ero , 5 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 4

– 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t
. deni ed , 130 S. C t
. 330 ( 2009) ( hol di ng t hatt he good fai t h exce pt i on appl i ed t o a w arr antt hatl acke d par t i cul ar i t y , i n par tbeca us e the age ntco ns ul t ed w i t h t he29 A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w ho i nfor m ed heri tm etl egal re q u ire m e n ts); cf

. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

al l am , 407 F. 3d 942, 947 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng t hatt he good fa i t h exce pt i on appl i ed w her e the off

i cerr el i ed on t he pr os ecut or ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat th e a f f id a v it p ro v id e d p ro b a b le c a u s e ). W e a lso n o te th a t th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e g o o d f

a ith exce pt i on i s ap p ropri at e bec aus e H ol l er , w ho dr aft ed the narr ow eraff

i davi tand w as aw are o f i t s l i m i t s , l ed the s ear ch t eam atT r ace y ’ s hom e. I n ac co r dance w i t h t he narr ow er aff i davi t , H ol l eri nform ed T r ace yand hi s w i fe thathe w as s ear chi ng forchi l d por nogr aphyw hen the off i cer s arr i ved at T rac ey ’s ho m e. Ind ee d , all o f th e it em s s e iz e d f rom T rac ey ’s hom e we r e v i d e o o rc o mpu t e re q u i p me n t , a n d t h e 2 0 8 i mages a n d 4 8 m o v ies tak e n f

ro m o n e o f

th e c o m p u ter s a ll alle g e d ly cont ai ned chi l d por nogr aphy

— cons i s t ent w i t h t he s cope of the n a rro w e r a f

f id a v it. T h e se f

a c ts s u p p o rt o u r g o o d f a ith det er m i nat i on and demonstr at e t hat t he pr i m ary purpos es of the Four t h A m endment ’s par t i cul ar i t yr equi r ement — l i m i t i ng t he offi cer s ’ di s cr et i on and not i fy i ng t he s ubj ect s of t he s cope of t he a u th o ri z e d s e a rc h a n d s e iz u re

— w e re a c h ie v e d in th is c a s e . See U n it edSt at es v. R i ccar di , 4 0 5 F

. 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 6 1

– 6 4 (10 th C ir

. 2005) ( hol di ng t hatt he good fai t h exce pt i on appl i ed w her e the w arr antl acke d par t i cul ar i t y , butt he af fi davi t l i m i t ed the s cope of t he s ear ch, t he off

i cer s w er e aw ar e of the af fi d av it , and the sea rch w as li m it ed to tha t perm itted b ythe a ff idav it ).
T ra c e yu rg e s th a t th e g o o d f a ith e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p ly30 beca us e the w arr anti s “gene r al , ” and thatgood fai t h cannots ave a gene r al w arr ant
. A ppel l ee’ s B r . 26 ( cit ing U ni t ed Stat es v. Y us uf , 4 6 1 F

. 3 d 3 7 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 )). W e rejec t T rac ey ’s ar gum entt hatt he w arr antw as “gene r al ” s uch thati t“ves t [ed] t he exe cut i ng offi cer s w i t h unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on t o conductan expl or at or yrum m agi ng t hr ough [a de fenda nt ’ s ] p a p e r s i n s ear ch of cr i m i nal evi dence

. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Ni net

y-Tw o Thousand Fo u r Hu n dre d

T w e n ty- T w o D o lla rs a n d

F ift y -S e v e n C e n ts , 307 F

. 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C hr is t i ne , 687 F. 2d 749, 753 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 8 2) )

. E xampl es of gene r al w arr ant s ar e thos e author i zi ng s ear ches forand s ei zur es of s uch vague cat egor i es of i t ems as “‘ s m uggl ed goods , ’” “ ‘obs cene m at eri al s, ’” “‘ bo ok s, recor ds , p a m ph l et s, cards, recei pts , l i st s, m e m o ra n d a , p ictu re s, re c o rd in g s an d o th e r w ritten in stru m e n ts conce rni ng the C om m u n istP artyo f T ex as,’” “‘il lega ll yo b tai ned fi l m s , ’ ” and “‘stol en pr oper t y . ’ ” Id

. (cit ati o n s o m itted). In Ni net y- Tw o Thousand Four H undr ed Tw ent

y- Tw o D ol l ars and F ift y -S e v e n C e n ts , 307 F. 3d at 1 4 6 , a ca s e i nvol vi ng i l l egal m oneyl aunder i ng, w e cons i der e d whet hera w arr antauthor i zi ng a se a rc h f o r th e f o llo w in g item s c o n stitu ted a “ g e n e ra l” w a rra n t: 1. R ece i pt s , i nvoi ces , l i s t s of b u sine ss as soci at es, de li v ery s chedul es , ledg ers, fi nanci al sta tem e n ts, c a s h re c e i p t , d i sbursem ent,
. . . sal es j ou rnal s, and corr es pondence

.31 2 . C o m puters, co m p u t e r p e r i p h e r a l s , r el at ed i ns t r uct i on m a n u a ls a n d n o tes , a n d so f tw a re in or dert o conductan off -si te s ear ch f o re l e c t r o n i c c o p i e s o f t h e i t e ms l i s t ed above

. Id

. at149. D espi t e the br eadth of the w arr ant , w hi ch i m pos ed vi r tual l yno l i m i t at i on on t he types of busi n es s r ecor ds s ubj ect t o s ei zur e, and w hi ch aut hor i zed a sea r ch for“corr es pondence ” gener al l y , t hen-J udge A l i t o w r ot e fort he maj or i t yt hatt he w arr antw as not“ge n era l”: “The w arr antt hus ‘ des cr i b[ed] i n .

. . i nclusi ve gen eri c t erm s w hat i s t o b e sei zed.’ Itdid not vest t he exe cut i ng offi cer s w i t h ‘ unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on’ t o s ear ch for and s eize w hat evert heyw i s hed. I tw as i ndubi t abl ybr oad, but i tw as not‘ gener al

. ’ ” Id . a t 1 4 9 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). He r e , t h e wa r r a n td i r e c t s o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h f

o ri t e ms r epr es ent i ng t he “pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en, ” but s pec i f i cal l yci t es on i t s fac e the s t atut or ypr ovi s i on cr i m i nal i zi ng p o ss e ss io n a n d d istrib u tio n o f im a g e s o f

c h ild re n e n g a g e d in pr ohi bi t e d s e x u a l a c t s . Re a d a s a who l e , t h i s warr a n t d i d not a u th o riz e a n e x p lo ra to ryru m m a g in g . T h e re f o re , itw a s n o t a g e n e ra l w a rra n t, an d a re a so n a b le o f f ice r c o u ld re lyo n it.
T he o ffi cer’ s fa i l ure to i nco rporat e t he af fi dav i t— a t ask that coul d be ac compl i s hed bys i m pl yaddi ng ‘ s ee a t t ache d affidavi t ’ i n th e a p p ropri at e sect i on — and use of t he p hrase32 “pos s i bl e expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en” do notamount t o “del i ber at e, r eckl es s , orgr os s l ynegl i gentconduct ” thatj us t i fi es t he appl i cat i on of t he excl us i onary rul e. N orhas T r ace ypr es ent ed evi dence t hatt hi s vi ol at i on i s an exa m pl e of “ r ecurr i ng or s y s t emi c negl i gence . ” See H er r i ng , 129 S. C t
. at702. I ns t ead, H ol l erand ot her offi cer s under t ook a thor ough i nves t i gat i on, as det ai l ed i n t he af

fi davi t , and the M agi str at e J udge found p ro b a b le c a u s e a n d is s u e d th e w a rr a n t. See S hep pa rd , 46 8 U. S. at 98 9 (ho lding that the g o o d f a ith ex ce p ti o n ap p li ed w h ere “[t ] he off

i cer s . . . t ook everys t ep thatcoul d r eas onabl ybe e x p e c ted o f th e m ” ). T h e o f f ice rs h a d g o o d re a so n to b e liev e in t he w arr ant ’ s val i di t y . A ccor di ngl y , appl i cat i on of the e x c lu s io n a ry ru le is n o t ju s tif ie d

. * * * * *
H ol l erdi d notexpl i ci t l yi nco rpor at e the af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e i nt o t he s ear ch w arr ant , and th ere fo r e the a f f id a v it ca n n o t b e u se d to n a rro w th e ter m s o f th e c o n c e d e d ly over l ybr oad w arr ant
. B eca us e the G overnm en t lacked good caus e fori t s fai l ur e t o ar gue bef or e the D i s t r ict C o u rt t hatt he w a rra n t’s la c k o f

p a rticu lar ityc o u ld b e c u re d w h e n th e a f f id a v it w a s a ttac h e d to th e w a rra n t a n d th e a c tu a l se a rc h w a s lim ited to t he t erm s of t he nar r ow er aff i davi t , t hi s ar gum ent w as w ai ved. H ow ever , undert hes e ci r cumst ance s t he good fa i t h exce pt i on appl i es and exc l us i o n of the evi dence i s notj us t i fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , t he or derof the D i s t r ict C our ts uppr es s i ng t he evi dence s ei zed, al ong w i th t he s t at ement m ade dur i ng t he33 s ear ch, is r ever s ed, and thi s cas e i s r emanded forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s .UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 3290

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

A ppel l ant

v. RA LPH D OU GLA S TRACEY

A P P EN D IX