Opinion ID: 682739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Execution of the Warrant to Search the Velardi Residence

Text: 19 A somewhat more substantial question is posed by the claim that the officers entered premises other than those described in the warrant, thereby making, in effect, an unauthorized warrantless entry. The warrant identified the house primarily by its location and physical appearance and secondarily by the identity of its occupant. The warrant was issued for: The fourth house west of the Lewandrowski Road a 2 1/2 story wood frame, white & blue with black shu[tt]ers 1st floor front Apt with apt in rear first and second floors ... occupied by unknown white male last name Velardi, who was further described by age, physical characteristics, and clothing. Only at the last moment, just as they were preparing to execute the warrant, did the defendants discover that the house occupied by Velardi was the third house, not the fourth house as described in the warrant. 20 Whether or not the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement would have been satisfied on these facts in the context of a motion to suppress, cf. United States v. Ellis, 971 F.2d 701, 703-05 (11th Cir.1992)--a matter we do not decide, we conclude that the defendants' qualified immunity shields them from liability because, beyond any reasonable dispute, it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate Fourth Amendment requirements. The officers had a warrant for premises described primarily as the fourth house, but also identified as premises occupied by Velardi. Just before entering, they fortuitously learned from several neighbors that Velardi lived in an apartment at the front of the third house. Upon knocking and asking for Chris, they were informed by someone inside the third house that Chris was not around, a response that added significant confirmation to the already reliable report from the neighbors that Velardi lived in the third house. Even if we put to one side the dispute as to whether the officers heard the sound of a toilet repeatedly being flushed, the undisputed facts show a highly reliable basis for interpreting the no-knock warrant to mean the third house, now credibly understood to satisfy the warrant's designation as the one occupied by Velardi, rather than the one described as the fourth house. Moreover, the only invasion of privacy that occurred based on this entirely plausible interpretation of the warrant was entry and an emergency sweep; a search of the premises was not conducted until the magistrate, informed of what the officers had learned on the scene prior to entry, explicitly authorized a search of the third house. 21 No jury could reasonably fail to find on the undisputed circumstances that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to take the actions they did. They had obtained a warrant, and reliable information from neighbors and an occupant had provided them with a reasonable basis for interpreting the warrant to refer to the third house, rather than the fourth house. Moreover, their intrusion was minimal until their authority to search the interior of the apartment in the third house was explicitly given by a magistrate. 22 Furthermore, had the officers reflected on the state of the law governing particularity requirements, they would have encountered considerable ambiguity as to the refinement of standards in this context. Initially, we note that the general rule regarding particularity is clear enough:  '[i]t is enough if the description is such that the officer[s] armed with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.'  National City Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d 1020, 1024 (2d Cir.1980) (quoting with alterations Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925)); see also United States v. Santore, 290 F.2d 51, 66-67 (2d Cir.1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 834-35, 81 S.Ct. 745-46, 749, 752, 5 L.Ed.2d 743-45 (1961); United States v. Fitzmaurice, 45 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir.1930). Courts of Appeals have rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to warrants that contain partial misdescriptions of the place to be searched so long as the officer executing the warrant could ascertain and identify the target of the search with no reasonable probability of searching another premises in error, United States v. Valentine, 984 F.2d 906, 909 (8th Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 93, 126 L.Ed.2d 60 (1993). Warrants have been upheld despite technical errors, such as an incorrect street address, when the possibility of actual error is eliminated by other information, whether it be a detailed physical description in the warrant itself, supplemental information from an appended affidavit, or knowledge of the executing agent derived from personal surveillance of the location to be searched. 3 23 What the case law has not clarified, however, is whether a misdescription can be overlooked only when the correcting information is known to the officers at the time they obtain the warrant or also when such information reliably comes to their attention thereafter. Decisions of the Supreme Court, Maryland v. Garrison, supra, and of this Circuit, see National City Trading Corp. v. United States, supra, 635 F.2d at 1024-26; United States v. Santore, supra, 290 F.2d at 66-67; United States v. Fitzmaurice, supra, 45 F.2d at 135, have not resolved this precise question. Language in Garrison appears to permit reliance on information acquired after issuance of the warrant. [W]e must judge the constitutionality of [the officers'] conduct in light of the information available to them at the time they acted. 480 U.S. at 85, 107 S.Ct. at 1017. The force of this statement is unclear, however, since in that case the new information prompted officers executing a warrant for the premises known as 2036 Park Avenue third floor apartment to stop searching upon the realization that they were in two distinct apartments. The Court noted that the executing officers were required to discontinue the search of [the second] apartment as soon as they discovered that there were two separate units on the third floor and that the unit they were searching might have been included in the warrant erroneously. Id. at 87, 107 S.Ct. at 1018. The new information narrowed the scope of a warrant, though what was seized prior to the narrowing was nonetheless validly obtained. Our case is almost the opposite: the scope of a warrant is broadened, or at least shifted to the premises next door, by new information, prompting the officers to enter the next-door premises upon realizing that the warrant's primary description was incorrect. 24 We do not think that the case law clearly established that police officers executing a warrant cannot rely on the sort of information gathered at the scene in this case to reinterpret the warrant's identification of the premises to be searched, even if the warrant's identification is regarded as erroneous. However Fourth Amendment standards might evolve in this area, these officers were entitled to believe that they acted reasonably, a conclusion we reach as a matter of law. 25 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.