Opinion ID: 167423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The warrant sufficiently described the areas to be searched.

Text: 43 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. `The test for determining the adequacy of the description of the location to be searched is whether the description is sufficient to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched.' United States v. Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d 1288, 1293 (10th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Pervaz, 118 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1997)). 44 The plaintiffs first contend that the warrant's factual inaccuracies, resulting in part from Agent Pollock's omissions and unreasonable inferences, rendered the warrant invalid. The warrant described the premises to be searched as follows: 45 the premises known as: 44 West 2700 South, South Salt Lake City, Utah, a white house, brown roof, front door faces south, small wood fence to the west of the door across the front, # 44 on the wall to the right of the front door, a detached garage to the rear of the house on the east side. 46 Aplts' App. vol. II, at 723. 47 Despite plaintiffs' protestations to the contrary, our precedent suggests that the warrant sufficiently described the area to be searched. We have upheld warrants like the one at issue where one part of the description is inaccurate, but the description has other accurate information to identify the place to be searched with particularity. See Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d at 1293. A technically wrong address does not invalidate a warrant if it otherwise describes the premises with sufficient particularity so that the police can ascertain and identify the place to be searched. Id.; cf. United States v. Williamson, 1 F.3d 1134, 1136 (10th Cir.1993) (invalidating a warrant that designated a rural mail box nine miles away from the premises that were searched, where the government argued unsuccessfully that the executing officer's knowledge of the actual location of the business alone cured the defective warrant). 48 With the benefit of hindsight, ... we now know that the description of that place was broader than appropriate.... Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85, 107 S.Ct. 1013. In Garrison, the officers realized, after their initial entry, that the description in the warrant was overbroad. The warrant encompassed the entire third floor of an apartment building, while the officers assumed there was only one apartment on that floor. In fact there were two apartments. The Court instructed that we must judge the constitutionality of their conduct in light of the information available to them at the time they acted. Those items of evidence that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing upon whether or not a warrant was validly issued.  Id. (emphasis added). 49 We do acknowledge that the omission of the garage residence's actual address was more than a mere clerical error. The requisite specificity of the description... depends heavily on the facts of each case. United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 500 (10th Cir.1991). Here, although the address given in the warrant was not the address of the garage residence, the description of the premises to be searched ... still describe[d] the same piece of property. United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371-72 (8th Cir.1979) (warrant met particularity requirement even though it misstated address of premises because the address, though technically incorrect, was reasonable for the location intended; the agents executing the warrant personally knew which premises were intended to be searched; and the premises which were intended to be searched were those actually searched). 50 Despite some inconsistencies in the legal title research, the affidavit and warrant provided accurate physical descriptions of the structures to be searched: a white house, brown roof, front door faces south, small wood fence to the west of the door across the front, # 44 on the wall to the right of the front door, a detached garage to the rear of the house on the east side. Aplts' App. vol. II, at 723. As explained more fully below, perhaps there were indications suggesting different residences at 44 and 44 ½ West 2700 South. Despite these inaccuracies, Agent Pollock, through surveillance, had personal knowledge of the physical description of the structures to be searched. See Gitcho, 601 F.2d at 372 (upholding search warrant in part where the agents executing the warrant.personally knew which premises were intended to be searched, and those premises were under constant surveillance while the warrant was obtained). 51 Another factor supporting the warrant's descriptive sufficiency is that the premises which were intended to be searched had previously been surveilled or were being surveilled while the warrant was obtained. Id. For these limited purposes, we hold that the warrant described the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. 52