Opinion ID: 416957
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Level of Scrutiny: Scrupulous Exactitude.

Text: 32 Appellants argue that we should examine the warrants with more scrutiny because First Amendment associational rights are involved. The Supreme Court has stated: Where the materials sought to be seized may be protected by the First Amendment, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment must be applied with 'scrupulous exactitude.'  Zurcher, 436 U.S. at 564, 98 S.Ct. at 1980, quoting Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. at 485, 85 S.Ct. at 511. In Stanford v. Texas, a warrant authorized the seizure of books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Party of Texas. The Supreme Court held that the warrant was too broad, in violation of the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement. 379 U.S. at 478-80, 486, 85 S.Ct. at 508-09, 512. The Supreme Court stated: [T]he constitutional requirement that warrants must particularly describe the 'things to be seized' is to be accorded the most scrupulous exactitude when the 'things' are books, and the basis for their seizure is the ideas which they contain.... No less a standard could be faithful to First Amendment freedoms. 379 U.S. at 485, 85 S.Ct. at 511 (citations and footnote omitted). The language of the instant warrants is similar to that in the Stanford v. Texas warrant. 33 In Zurcher the scrupulous exactitude standard was applied. The Supreme Court upheld the search of a newspaper's office for photographs of a violent clash between demonstrators and police at the Stanford University Hospital. The Court emphasized that the scrupulous exactitude standard does not erect a barrier to searches: 34 [T]he prior cases do no more than insist that the courts apply the warrant requirements with particular exactitude when First Amendment interests would be endangered by the search. As we see it, no more than this is required where the warrant requested is for the seizure of criminal evidence reasonably believed to be on the premises occupied by a newspaper. Properly administered, the preconditions for a warrant--probable cause, specificity with respect to the place to be searched and the items to be seized, and overall reasonableness--should afford sufficient protection against the harms that are assertedly threatened by warrants for searching newspaper offices. 35 436 U.S. at 565, 98 S.Ct. at 1981. 36 The government argues that the scrupulous exactitude standard is not applicable to the instant case. The government points out that the documents to be seized were not being sought for the ideas they contained, rather they were sought because they constituted indicia of membership in an organization appellants allegedly used for unlawful activities. 7 Stanford v. Texas specifically distinguished the books in that case from the type of books in the Dennis case: A 'book' which is no more than a ledger of an unlawful enterprise thus might stand on a quite different constitutional footing from the books involved in the present case. 379 U.S. at 485 n. 16, 85 S.Ct. at 512 n. 16. 37 Nevertheless, we conclude that First Amendment interests are involved in this case and therefore the scrupulous exactitude standard is appropriate. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, in Stanford v. Texas, membership in the Communist Party was per se illegal, so seizure of some of the books involved there would have constituted indicia of membership in an organization which would be unlawful. The Supreme Court nevertheless required scrupulous exactitude for the particularity requirement. Second, although in this case the items were not seized for their ideas, as were the books in Stanford v. Texas, they were seized for the associations they demonstrated. Just as the ideas in a book are protected by the First Amendment, so are associations so protected. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1171, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). Evidence of membership in a particular organization can severely affect the exercise of First Amendment rights, possibly through reprisals in the community. NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462-63, 78 S.Ct. at 1171-72. Admittedly, the Hells Angels is not as respected an organization as the NAACP. However, to ensure the protection of the associational rights of desirable organizations, it is necessary that warrants for searches for evidence of membership in bona fide organizations meet the Fourth Amendment requirements with scrupulous exactitude. 8 Analogously, the Supreme Court in formulating the scrupulous exactitude requirement in Stanford v. Texas, relied on Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1708, 6 L.Ed.2d 1127 (1961), where the Court held that certain procedures had to be followed in the seizure of publications unprotected by the First Amendment (obscene publications) to ensure that protected publications were not seized or held for too long a period of time. 367 U.S. at 730-31, 737, 81 S.Ct. at 1715-16, 1719. The same rationale applies to organizations, requiring scrupulous exactitude to ensure that protected associations are not endangered. Thus, the possible implication of protected First Amendment associational rights in this case requires the scrupulous exactitude standard. 38