Opinion ID: 1286575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unrelated Items

Text: The trial court's suppression of the unrelated items seized during the course of the search pursuant to the initial warrant was also clearly correct. No effort was made in the trial court, nor on this appeal, to justify the seizure of those unrelated items and the trial court found that none of the officers involved had any reason to believe that any of the[se] items seized were contraband, stolen, evidence of a crime, or used in the commission of crime. See Rule 41(b), N.D.R.Crim.P. [7] These wrongful seizures present the most troublesome aspect of this case because they tend to support the trial court's determination that the officers were engaging in a general exploratory search. In some cases, a general exploratory search may invalidate the entire search and seizure, even though done pursuant to an otherwise valid warrant. [8] The findings do not disclose whether these unrelated items were seized before or after identification of the microwave oven, the key item which is the focus of this case. Furthermore, it is clear from the trial court's findings that it was the microwave oven, and not these unrelated items, that was used to connect with other information which led to the issuance of the second and third warrants. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the seizure of these miscellaneous unrelated and unwarranted items should not alone invalidate the seizure of the microwave oven where suppression of the rest of the evidence seized by warrants turns on the propriety of the seizure of the microwave.