Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The claim of lack of particularity in the search warrants' descriptions

Text: 91 Lastly, the defendants say the warrant was overly broad and constitutionally deficient, because it merely directed the officers to seize a laundry list of personal papers likely to be found in any Oklahoma home, as well as drugs and drug paraphernalia and equipment. Brief in Chief of Appellant Eugene Fisher at 26. 92 The issue implicates the Fourth Amendment mandate that warrants not issue without particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, inter alia. The trial judge considered the affidavits and warrants and their descriptions of the property which constituted evidence of criminal conduct. 31 The descriptions of the property as constituting evidence of criminal conduct were broad. We agree with the trial judge, however, that the language of the warrant was sufficiently specific in detail to avoid the evils of a general search. In United States v. Lamport, 787 F.2d 474, 476 (10th Cir.1986), we upheld a description against such a claim when it included records of a physician constituting insurance billings, a record book of payments from insurance companies, checkbook stubs for two years, financial records and any other property that constitutes evidence of commission of the criminal offense. In light of the on-going drug activities described in the affidavits, and the nature of the operations, we feel the descriptions were sufficient to be valid under the constitutional standard.