Opinion ID: 487817
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Particularity of the Description in the Warrant

Text: 18 The fourth amendment requires that a warrant particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Warrants which permit  'general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings'  are prohibited. United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1282 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 75, 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985) (quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2748, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). Fannin contends that the warrant was overbroad and did not describe with sufficient particularity the items to be seized from his residence. We find that the warrant was not constitutionally infirm. 19 This court stated recently that a warrant need only be reasonably specific in its description of the objects of the search and need not be elaborately detailed. Hayes, 794 F.2d at 1354. Accordingly, the court upheld a warrant which authorized seizure of 20 controlled substance[s] ... all records which document the purchasing, dispensing and prescribing of controlled substances, including, but not limited to, records contained in patient charts ... patient logs, appointment books and other records and ledgers reflecting distribution of controlled substances ... correspondence concerning the procuring, transferring, administering, prescribing or dispensing of controlled substances ... all of which constitute evidence of possible violations.... 21 Id. at 1355. This court found that because the warrant limited the officers to seizing those items related to controlled substances, the articulated standard was a reasonable guide to the officers who conducted the search. Id. at 1356. The court also ruled that the warrant did not have to be limited to authorizing seizure of those documents known to exist, because the known [evidence] could fairly be considered as representative of more pervasive violations of the [law]. Id. 22 Similarly, this court has upheld the portion of a warrant that authorized the seizure of  'records, notes, documents indicating [the defendant's] involvement and control of prostitution activity including but not limited to, photographs, handwritten notes, ledger books, transportation vouchers and tickets, hotel registration, receipts, bank documents as deposit slips, checks and records, toll records, bail bondsmen receipts and medical billings.'  United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461, 1472 (9th Cir.1986). The court found the language of the warrant not overly broad because it effectively tells the officers to seize only those items indicating prostitution activity. Id. 23 The Fannin warrant limited the scope of the search to those items related to particular criminal activity that was named and described in the warrant and the attached affidavit. It listed the categories of documents and items sought and specified that only those items tending to establish illegal trafficking in hashish and other controlled substances, profits and the investment of profits derived from such illegal trafficking, and the identities of the persons engaged in such illegal trafficking should be seized. As such, it effectively tells officers to seize only those items related to illegal drug trafficking. 24 In contrast, search warrants that lack sufficient particularity and are not accompanied by specific affidavits have been held overbroad by this circuit. For example, in Washington, this court held overbroad those sections of the search warrant authorizing the seizure of articles of personal property tending to establish the wealth and financial status of [the defendant]  and evidence of association ... with the following persons but not limited to them. Washington, 797 F.2d at 1472-73 (emphasis in the original). In United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1982), we invalidated a search warrant in which the only limitation on the search and seizure of the appellant's business papers was the requirement that they be the instrumentalities or evidence of the general tax evasion statute. Cardwell, 680 F.2d at 77. And in Crozier, 777 F.2d at 1381, this court suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant which authorized the seizure of [m]aterial evidence of violation [sic] 21 U.S.C. 841, 846, (Manufacture and Possession with intent to distribute Amphetamine and Conspiracy). 25 Our decision in Spilotro makes clear that this court will not uphold warrants that are overbroad. In Spilotro, we held invalid a wide-sweeping warrant which did not describe the nature of the suspected criminal offense, but merely recited United States Code titles and sections. Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 964. As in Washington, Cardwell, and Crozier, no affidavit was attached to the warrant, so that the deficiency in specificity could not be cured. Id. at 967; see also United States v. Hillyard, 677 F.2d 1336, 1340 (9th Cir.1982) (in order to cure a warrant's lack of specificity, an affidavit must be attached to and incorporated by reference in the warrant). While invalidating the warrant, we explained that the warrant could have been valid (1) had the warrant described in greater detail the items one commonly expects to find on premises used for the criminal activities in question, or (2) had the warrant referred to specific criminal activities, or (3) had a descriptive affidavit been attached to and incorporated in the warrant. Id. at 964, 967. Because the Fannin warrant satisfies all three conditions, it is sufficiently particular. 26 Fannin argues that the warrant to search his residence, as distinguished from the valid warrants in the cases discussed above, was rendered overbroad by the catchall phrase at the end of the warrant permitting seizure of other evidence, at this time unknown. The description of items to be seized must be specific enough to enable the executing officers to identify those items which may legitimately be seized. Spilotro, 800 F.2d at 963. Other evidence, without further specification, is not a sufficiently particular description. The government may not rely on general, sweeping language that permits seizure of any item. However, as indicated above, any potential constitutional infirmity in the Fannin warrant was cured by satisfying the three Spilotro factors.