Opinion ID: 1456188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Particularity of the description of the item to be seized

Text: Hall argues that the search warrant and supporting affidavit did not describe the engine with sufficient particularity and, as such, the warrant is invalid. The Fourth Amendment directly expresses that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,    particularly describing the place to be searched, and the    things to be seized.  (Emphasis added.) A general search is not permitted; officers executing a warrant are authorized to seize only the property described. Smith v. State, 557 P.2d 130, 135 (Wyo.1976) (Thomas, J., concurring); Mesmer v. United States, 405 F.2d 316, 319 (10th Cir.1969); Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485, 85 S.Ct. 506, 512, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965); Seymour v. United States, 369 F.2d 825, 826-27 (10th Cir.1966). In Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927), the United States Supreme Court shed this light on the particularity requirement: The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. The search warrant in question provided for the search and seizure of a 350 cubic [inch] engine, orange in color, with chrome valve covers and a red chrome anodized fan in a 1972 Chevrolet pickup, black in color, [vehicle identification number] VIN CKE142J143091, bearing Wyoming license plate 17-T-CHEV. The district court concluded that the search warrant stated with sufficient particularity the thing to be seized and that although the officers did not determine with certainty before the seizure that the engine installed in Hall's pickup was the stolen one, the officers acted reasonably and clearly seized the property from the pickup which was accurately identified. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion nor was it clearly erroneous in this conclusion. It was reasonable for the officers to seize the pickup in order to have the engine extracted and to have the engine disassembled to verify that it was indeed the stolen engine.