Opinion ID: 178085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fourth Amendment's Particularity Requirement

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Thus, the Fourth Amendment protects against wide-ranging exploratory searches unsupported by probable cause, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987), by mandating that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant, not in the supporting documents. Groh, 540 U.S. at 557, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (a warrant, however, may cross-reference and be accompanied by supporting documents); see also United States v. Waker, 534 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir.2008) (discussing Groh ). We note that, while Rosa argues that the search warrant in this case lacked particularity because it purportedly authorized a general search of his digital media for evidence of any criminal activity, he has never asserted that the warrant was issued in the absence of probable cause that he was engaged in child molestation or child pornography. Rosa principally argues that because it failed to state with any level of particularity the specific criminal activity alleged or the type of digital evidence to be sought from the electronic items seized, the warrant authorized the officers to conduct an unfettered search of the contents of his numerous electronic devices, any one of which might contain sensitive personal information unrelated to the suspected crimes of child pornography and child molestation. For example, officers conducting a search pursuant to the explicit terms of the warrant might review expense reports, income-related files and correspondence, and federal filing information in search of evidence of tax evasion. Or officers might read through e-mail correspondence in search of evidence of an internet-based phishing scheme. As a consequence, Rosa effectively argues that the warrant's authorization of an uncircumscribed search of his electronic equipment violated the Fourth Amendment's core protection against general searches because it provided the government with unrestrained access to electronic records of his daily activities and private affairs. See United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127, 1132 (10th Cir.2009) (The modern development of the personal computer and its ability to store and intermingle a huge array of one's personal papers in a single place increases law enforcement's ability to conduct a wide-ranging search into a person's private affairs, and accordingly makes the particularity requirement that much more important.). We agree with Rosa that the search warrant in this case lacked the requisite specificity to allow for a tailored search of his electronic media. The warrant was defective in failing to link the items to be searched and seized to the suspected criminal activityi.e., any and all electronic equipment potentially used in connection with the production or storage of child pornography and any and all digital files and images relating to child pornography contained thereinand thereby lacked meaningful parameters on an otherwise limitless search of Rosa's electronic media. See United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588, 590 (2d Cir.1987) ([T]he particularity requirement `makes general searches ... 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.' (quoting Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927))). Here, the warrant directed officers to seize and search certain electronic devices, but provided them with no guidance as to the type of evidence sought. See United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1992) (Mere reference to `evidence' of . . . general criminal activity provides no readily ascertainable guidelines for the executing officers as to what items to seize. . . . [A]uthorization to search for `evidence of a crime,' that is to say, any crime, is so broad as to constitute a general warrant.). We therefore conclude that the warrant failed to describe with particularity the evidence sought and, more specifically, to link that evidence to the criminal activity supported by probable cause. As a result, the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against general searches. See Bianco, 998 F.2d at 1116 (noting that the subject warrant, when viewed by itself, was impermissibly broad because it described neither the precise items to be seized nor the possible crimes involved); see also United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078, 1091 (10th Cir.2009) (If the warrant is read to allow a search of all computer records without description or limitation it would not meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.). The Government relies on our decision in Bianco to argue that any defect in the search warrant may be cured by reference to its supporting documents, which make clear that the search was limited to gathering evidence of three New York crimes, including crimes of child pornography and child molestation. [2] In Bianco, we held that a warrant authorizing the seizure of [N]otes, Ledgers, Envelopes, Papers, and Records Containing Initials, Names, Addresses, Dollar Amounts, Codes, Figures, and the Like: United States Currency, was not particular enough to limit the scope of the search to evidence of the defendant's suspected crimes of loansharking and extortion. Id. at 1115. We further held, however, that this lack of particularity [did] not render the warrant incurably defective. Id. at 1116. Rather, we looked to the particular facts in Bianco, and concluded that, despite the absence of express incorporation and the lack of attachment of the affidavit to the warrant, the federal agents and the defendant were aware of the scope of and limitations on the search, both of which were spelled out clearly in the affidavit supporting the search warrant application. Id. at 1116-17. But see George, 975 F.2d at 76 (in a case decided only one year prior to Bianco, stating that [r]esort to an affidavit to remedy a warrant's lack of particularity is only available when it is incorporated by reference in the warrant itself and attached to it). To the extent that Bianco permits the consideration of unincorporated and unattached supporting documents to cure an otherwise defective search warrant, however, it has been abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Groh. In Groh, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) applied to search a private ranch in Montana for any automatic firearms or parts to automatic weapons, destructive devices to include but not limited to grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and any and all receipts pertaining to the purchase or manufacture of automatic weapons or explosive devices or launchers after private visitors to the ranch reported seeing a stockpile of weaponry and explosive devices on the premises. 540 U.S. at 554, 124 S.Ct. 1284. Along with the application, the investigating ATF agent prepared a detailed affidavit setting forth the factual basis for the search and a warrant form. Id. The magistrate judge signed the warrant form, which failed to set forth any of the items to be seized and instead described the residential structure on the property as the concealed item. Thereupon, the search warrant application and affidavit were sealed. A team of federal and state officers, led by the ATF agent, executed the search warrant the next day. As the search was underway, the ATF agent described to the homeowners the objects of the search but ultimately failed to uncover any illegal weapons or explosives. Id. at 555, 124 S.Ct. 1284. In a civil suit for damages against the ATF agent and the other executing officers, the homeowners asserted, inter alia, a Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at 555, 124 S.Ct. 1284. Before the Supreme Court, the ATF agent-petitioner conceded that the warrant was facially deficient because it lacked any description of the type of evidence sought but pointed to the specificity in the application. Id. at 557, 124 S.Ct. 1284. In addressing whether the supporting documents could save the warrant, the Court stated that [t]he fact that the application adequately described the `things to be seized' does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity because the Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant. Id. (emphasis in original). Having concluded the warrant was deficient for failing to describe the items to be seized, the Court considered it irrelevant that the magistrate judge had issued the warrant based on probable cause, that the ATF agent had orally described to the homeowners the items to be seized, and that the actual search had not exceeded the limits contemplated by the magistrate judge on the basis of the search warrant application and affidavit. Id. at 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284. In rejecting the ATF agent-petitioner's further claim that the warrant should be upheld because the goals of the particularity requirement were met under the facts of the case, the Court stated that the lack of particularity in the warrant gave no written assurance that the magistrate judge had found probable cause to search and seize all of the items listed in the affidavit and that it was no answer that the agents exercised self-restraint in executing the otherwise limitless search authorized by the warrant. Id. at 560-61, 124 S.Ct. 1284. While we recognize that this case differs from Groh because the warrant here did list specific items to be seized, the description in the search warrant of Rosa's residence was overbroad and provided the officers with no judicial limit on the scope of their search, especially as it related to the seizure of electronically stored notes and records tending to identify criminal conduct. Cf. Groh, 540 U.S. at 561, 124 S.Ct. 1284; see United States v. Liu, 239 F.3d 138, 140 (2d Cir.2000) (A warrant must be sufficiently specific to permit the rational exercise of judgment by the executing officers in selecting what items to seize. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Because we may no longer rely on unincorporated, unattached supporting documents to cure an otherwise defective search warrant, the warrant fails for lack of particularity.