Opinion ID: 2042609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Warrant Description.

Text: The warrant in this case authorized the seizure of: 1. Any and all evidence showing the use of animals in an exhibition of fighting. 2. Monies from the receipt of gambling or participation of the animal fighting. Todd contends that this language was so broad that it constituted a general warrant, violating the fourth amendment, which requires a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched, or the person and things to be seized. But the requirements for warrants are practical and not abstract. State v. Bakker, 262 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Iowa 1978). A reasonably specific warrant does not mean that the warrant must be elaborately detailed, United States v. Reed, 726 F.2d 339, 342 (7th Cir.1984), or enable authorities to minutely identify every item for which they are searching, United States v. Prewitt, 553 F.2d 1082, 1086 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 840, 98 S.Ct. 135, 54 L.Ed.2d 104 (1977). A description is sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher reasonably to ascertain and identify the things to be seized. United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 754-55 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 440, 83 L.Ed.2d 365; 469 U.S. 1076, 105 S.Ct. 574, 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1348 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 83 (1983). When a warrant affiant has probable cause but cannot give an exact description of the materials to be seized, a warrant will generally be upheld if the description is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit. See United States v. Santarelli, 778 F.2d 609, 614 (11th Cir.1985). In United States v. Osborne, 630 F.2d 374, 378 (5th Cir.1980), the court upheld a warrant authorizing seizure of any and all evidence relating to the armed robbery, because the warrant limited the search to the instrumentalities of the specified offense. Like the warrant in Osborne, the warrant in question limited the search to evidence of a specified offense, and the searcher could reasonably ascertain and identify the items to be seized.