Opinion ID: 2784216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Overbreadth of the Warrant

Text: Next, Kruse argues that the warrant was overbroad because it permitted officers to search for firearms when there was no evidence in the affidavit of firearm ownership or trafficking. It is well established that a search warrant for evidence allows law enforcement to search anything or anywhere on the premises where that evidence might be. If [law enforcement officers] are looking for a canary's corpse, they can search a cupboard, but not a locket. If they are looking for an adolescent hippopotamus, they can search the living room or garage but not the microwave oven. United States v. Evans, 92 F.3d 540, 543 (7th Cir. 1996). In United States v. Nichols, 344 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), for example, firearms that were found under a suspect's mattress were not subject to suppression under the plain view doctrine, even though the search warrant did not authorize the officers to look for firearms. Id. at 798–99; see also United States v. Weinbender, 109 F.3d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir. 1997) (upholding the denial of a motion to suppress a silencer under the plain view doctrine after police removed a picture from a wall, removed dry wall, moved two pieces of wood stuck between beams in the wall, and used a flashlight to see and recover the silencer). -6- On these facts, the inclusion of firearms in the warrant had no effect upon the actual discovery of the firearms because they were observed in plain view during an authorized search for drugs. Officers were authorized to search in Kruse's bedroom closet because marijuana, paraphernalia, and other drug related evidence could have been stored there.4 Upon finding the gun case, officers were authorized to look inside the case because drugs could be stored inside the case. Upon seeing the gun, officers were authorized to seize it under the plain view doctrine because they were authorized to search the gun case, the firearm was in plain sight, and the firearm's incriminating nature would have been immediately apparent given the officers' knowledge of Kruse's prior drug convictions.