IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-0087-CB

CHRISTOPHER JAMES WILLIAMS

ORDER

This matter is before the court onthe defendant’s Motion(doc. 20) for Leave to File Motion Out

of Time and his Motion (doc. 21) to Suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, including

the firearm upon which this prosecution is based and a statement from the defendant. The court grants

leave to file the motion to suppress, and considers the latter motion on its merits.

The sole basis ofthe motion to suppress is defendant’s assertionthat the warrant wasinsufficiently

particular as it contained anerroneous physicaldescriptionofthe house to be searched. The warrant was

issued by a Judge ofthe DistrictCourt ofMarengo CountyonNovember 29, 2004. It allowed the search

of the residence of Christopher James Williams which was further described in the warrant as “807 East

Franklin Street, Demopolis, AL. A Green and White House with a Fence Around It.” According to

defendant’s attorney, the house was not green and white and did not have a fence. All of the other

information, including the street address and the name of the resident, were correct.

 “It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable

effort[,] ascertain and identify the place intended” Steele v. U.S., 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925). Further, the

good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to technical deficiencies in the warrant.

Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984). 

In U.S. v. Ellis, 971 F.2d 701 (11th Cir. 1992), a panel of this Circuit addressed a similar

Case 2:05-cr-00087-WS-B Document 26 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 3
‘particularity’ challenge based uponanerroneous description in an application and warrant of the place to

be searched. The officer had requested

a warrant to search “the third mobile home on the north side of Christian Acres Road” in

Grand Bay, Alabama. The warrant and accompanying affidavit did not give any other

information to narrow the search, and [the requesting officer] (at that time) did not know

who inhabited the home. The documents did not indicate that the mobile home was owned

or inhabited by Billy Ellis, but in fact indicated that the “[o]ccupant [was] unknown to

affiant.” Moreover, the documents did not describe the physical appearance of Ellis’

mobile home in any way. In fact, the affidavit added nothing to the warrant.

Id. at 702 (record citations omitted).

The Court distinguished that situation from a line of cases that had upheld warrants because held

that, because of the confluence of facts in that particular case, the situation presented a real threat of a

general search of the entire neighborhood: not only wasthe descriptionofthe locationincorrect, but there

was no other information in the warrant from which officers could discern the place to be searched. The

requestingofficerdid not knowthe name ofthe resident ofthe trailer and, though the executing officer knew

that defendant was the target ofthe investigation, the Court held that because the name did not appear on

the warrant or application, they could not use that knowledge to cure the warrant’s deficiency. Id. at 704.

Also, the executing officers had not observed the home previously and so had no personal knowledge that

could have narrowed the search. The court held the warrant to be invalid and that the Good Faith

exception did not apply. 

The instant case does not present such an extreme situation and does not present a possibility of

a generalized search. The street address was alone sufficient to describe the property to be searched, and

the name of the resident presented additional information from which even an officer unfamiliar with the

investigation could have determined the place to be searched, if necessary. The inclusion of additional

information which turned out to be inaccurate does not change that fact. 

Case 2:05-cr-00087-WS-B Document 26 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 3
The warrant at issue was sufficiently particularized. The court need not apply the good faith

exception.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED 

1) that the defendant’s Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED; and 

2) that the Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

DONE this the 5th day of July, 2005.

s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00087-WS-B Document 26 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3