Opinion ID: 2975082
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of the Search Warrant – Ernest Miller

Text: Ernest Miller argues that the search warrant for the November 27, 2002, search of the trailer did not identify the items to be seized with sufficient specificity and that the officers’ search of the shed behind the trailer exceeded the warrant’s scope. Prior to trial, Miller filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the shed, contesting, among other things, the warrant’s validity for failure to identify the shed as a building to be searched. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Miller’s motion be denied because Miller lacked standing to object to the search of the shed and, in any event, 5 the search did not exceed the scope of the warrant. Miller filed no written objections to this aspect of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and the district court, after reviewing the objections that Miller did file, adopted the Report in its entirety. Because Miller failed to object to these findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, he has waived the right to raise them before this court on appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Although we may excuse Miller’s waiver in the interests of justice, see id. at 155, we do not find any reason to excuse the waiver here. In the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge, Miller objected to the search of the outbuilding because it “belong[ed] to someone other than the defendants or their family.” Miller’s own objection establishes his lack of standing to object to the search, and the affidavit and warrant are facially sufficient to support the breadth of the search.