Opinion ID: 545090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: order 89-cr-70-c

Text: Sept. 20, 1989 3 This criminal case is before the court on defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation entered herein by the United States Magistrate on September 15, 1989. The magistrate recommended denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seied during the execution of a search warrant that defendant contends was unconstitutionally broad. For the reasons that follow, I will adopt the magistrate's report and follow his recommendation to deny defendant's motion. 4 At the outset, I note defendant's counsel's statement in his objections that he was given only one working day from the entry of the Report and Recommendation in which to file his objections. He is correct, to the extent that the cover letter accompanying the Report and Recommendation stated that objections were to be received by September 18. However, defendant's counsel is an experienced criminal defense lawyer, well aware of the statutory provision permitting ten days after entry of a Report and Recommendation for the filing of objections. It seems unlikely that he did not recognize the September 18 date as a typographical error. In any event, even if he did not have as much time as he wished to prepare his objections, there is on file his ten-page brief in support of the motion and his 27-page reply brief, as well as his five-page statement of objections. Given the narrow focus of the issue, it is difficult to imagine what more defendant might have submitted had he been told that he had the full ten days in which to object. 5 The only issue raised in this motion to suppress is whether the search warrant authorizing the search of defendant's residence and the seizure of various items in the residence was sufficiently precise to meet the Fourth Amendment requirement that warrants shall not issue unless particularly describing ... the ... things to be seized. 6 In the application for the search warrant, Jed Sperry, a special agent with the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Bureau of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, averred that he had been buying cocaine from defendant over a period of six months, that he had made four purchases from defendant at defendant's residence, and that he had arranged to make another on the next day. He sought authorization to seize nine categories of property constituting evidence of violation of narcotics laws. For example, he listed as one category of property to be seized: 7 Address and/or telephone books and papers reflecting names, addresses and/or telephone numbers, which are evidence of violations of Title 21, U.S.C. Sec. 841, Sec. 846, Sec. 848; 8 Defendant contends that this listing is so broad that it does not restrict or guide the discretion of the officer executing the warrant, but leaves it entirely up to the officer to make the determination whether a particular address or paper is evidence of violation of the narcotics laws. That may be true, but it does not necessarily follow that the warrant is unconstitutionally overbroad. It is wholly legitimate for the executing officers to seize any paper or address book or telephone book that appears to be evidence of violations of the narcotics laws. That this may mean that many papers are seized is a consequence of the nature of the illegal activity, rather than of an unconstitutionally overbroad warrant. As the magistrate pointed out in his Report and Recommendation, a business activity such as drug trafficking may reasonably be expected to have records, inventory, supplies, and capital investments on the premises. 9 I am persuaded that the magistrate's analysis of defendant's motion is well-founded. I see no need to prolong the discussion of the issue. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate entered herein on September 15, 1989, is ADOPTED as the court's own. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of the search warrant issued by the United States Magistrate on June 1, 1989, is DENIED. 1 BY THE COURT: 10 /s/BARBARA B. CRABB