Opinion ID: 3049756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contents of the search warrant

Text: We next consider “the contents of the search warrant . . . .” Hitchcock, 286 F.3d at 1071. The face of the search warrant contains three paragraphs describing what was to be searched. The first describes Hurd’s person, the second describes his residence, and the third describes his vehicle. The residence is described in detail: The residence and curtilage at 3644 Southeast 88th Avenue apartment A, in the City of Portland, Mult- nomah County, Oregon. The residence at 3644 Southeast 88th Avenue apartment A, Portland, Multnomah County, is within the Spring Garden Apart- ments, located at the south end of SE 88th Avenue, south of SE Lafayette Street. The apartment is within a two story apartment building located on the west side of the apartment complex. The building is yellow in color with white trim and red brick accents. The numbers “3644”, black in color, are set into the brick on a post to the right of the front door. Apartment A is at the south end of the building. The front door, green in color, faces east. The letter “A”, gold in color, is posted on the front door at eye level. The residence at 3644 SE 88th Avenue, apartment A is within the City of Portland, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon. A short blank line immediately precedes the paragraph describing Hurd’s residence as well as the paragraphs describing Hurd’s person and his vehicle. Judge Kurshner initialed the lines next to the first and third paragraphs (describing UNITED STATES v. HURD 10517 Hurd’s person and vehicle), but not the line next to the second paragraph (describing Hurd’s residence). The search warrant also contains two paragraphs that specifically describe the items to be seized, including crack cocaine, drug paraphernalia such as razor blades and scales, and cash. Judge Kursh- ner’s signature appears at the end of the warrant. [3] Hurd argues that Judge Kurshner’s initials next to the paragraphs describing Hurd’s person and his vehicle, and the absence of her initials next to the paragraph describing Hurd’s residence, indicate that the judge only authorized a search of the person and the vehicle, but not the residence. We find that an objective assessment of the contents of the warrant does not lead to this conclusion. Because a neutral and detached judge signed the warrant, and because that warrant was sup- ported by a sworn affidavit clearly establishing probable cause and describing with particularity the places to be searched and the items to be seized, it met all of the constitutional requirements for a valid search warrant. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Judge Kurshner’s words and actions as she exam- ined and signed the warrant indicate that her failure to initial the description of Hurd’s residence was a minor technical error rather than evidence of a constitutional deficiency in the contents of the search warrant. This assessment is buttressed by Judge Kurshner’s testimony at the suppression hearing that her failure to initial the blank line next to the paragraph describing the residence was merely an “oversight” rather than an indication that she did not authorize the search of the residence. She also noted at the suppression hearing that she normally crosses out any deficient portions of a search warrant before signing her name at the end of the document. In this case, Judge Kurshner left the entire warrant intact, includ- ing the paragraph describing Hurd’s residence. Thus, an objective assessment of the contents of the search warrant also indicates that the warrant was lawfully authorized, and that Hurd’s residence was within its scope. 10518 UNITED STATES v. HURD