Opinion ID: 461301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Stein Warrant

Text: 37 The search warrant for the April 9 search of the Stein residence authorized the seizure of Material evidence of violation 21 USC 841, 846, (Manufacture and Possession with intent to distribute Amphetamine and Conspiracy). 38 The affidavit for the warrant specified Amphetamine, precursor chemicals, including Methylamine, P-2-P, Ether, and Alcohol, laboratory apparatus, notes, formulas, as well as any indicia of ownership and control of the premises. However, the agent when he executed the warrant, did not have the affidavit with him. 39 The government contends that the omission in the warrant of the specific items to be seized was a mistake and that the agent was familiar with the content of the affidavit and believed that he was bound by its terms. 40 Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant must particularly describe the items to be seized, and nothing may be left to the discretion of the executing officer. Marron v. United States, supra, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927). The search warrant for the Stein residence authorizes a general search for evidence of an amphetamine business. This warrant is overbroad and violates the Fourth Amendment. 41 Under United States v. Leon, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 reh'g denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 52, 82 L.Ed.2d 942 (1984), evidence seized under a facially-valid warrant later found to be invalid may be admissible if the executing officers act in good faith and in reasonable reliance on the warrant. 42 Here, the warrant is deficient because it is overbroad and does not describe any particular property. We hold that the agent could not reasonably rely on the warrant. 43 Massachusetts v. Sheppard, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), the recent Supreme Court decision which the government asserts requires a different result, is not in point. In Sheppard, a detective sought a warrant to search for weapons and other evidence of a murder. The only available warrant form was a form for controlled substances. The detective deleted the words controlled substance from the affidavit but neglected to delete them from the application. Although the judge assured the detective that the necessary changes in the warrant would be made, the judge failed to make them. The detective took the warrant and searched the defendant's residence. 44 The Supreme Court upheld the warrant because its invalidity was due to a mere technical error on the part of the issuing judge. Sheppard, 104 S.Ct. at 3426. The detective had told the judge that the warrant form needed to be changed, and he was assured by the judge that the necessary changes would be made. Id., 104 S.Ct. at 3429. The Supreme Court concluded that there was an objectively reasonable basis for the officers' mistaken belief that the search was authorized by a valid warrant so that suppressing the evidence would not serve any deterrent function. Id. at 3429-30. 45 Here, there was no mere technical error and the agent's conduct was not reasonable. In contrast to the detective in Sheppard, he did not take every step that could reasonably be expected of him. Id. at 3429. He relied on a warrant that merely stated Material evidence of violation 21 USC 841, 846 (Manufacture and Possession with intent to distribute Amphetamine and Conspiracy). He obtained no specific assurance from the magistrate that the overbroad warrant was acceptable. Although the affidavit was more specific, the agent did not have it when he made the search. Because evidence of his good faith was lacking, the application of the exclusionary rule here may deter the police from relying on overbroad warrants. 46 We affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence seized from the Stein residence on April 9, 1980. We also affirm the order suppressing evidence seized from the Stein residence on April 11, 1980 because the April 11 search was the fruit of the illegal search on April 9.