Opinion ID: 221216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Description of items to be seized

Text: The district court also considered the warrants’ description of the items to be seized too broad, stating that there was merely a laundry list of specific items unconnected to an alleged crime. We disagree. This Court has held that “a description is sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher reasonably to ascertain and identify the things to be seized.” United States v. Santarelli, 778 F.2d 609, 614 (11th Cir. 1985). Warrants have been upheld “when the description is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.” Id. In Santarelli, the final clause of the warrant at issue, authorized seizure of all property constituting evidence of the crimes of making and conspiring to make extortionate extensions of credit, financing extortionate extensions of credit, and collections of and conspiracy to collect extortionate extensions of credit which are being kept there in violation of Title 18, United States Code, §§ 892, 893 and 894. Id. at 613-14 (emphasis added). This Court upheld that warrant despite its broad wording. Id. at 615 (noting that “[s]everal circuits have upheld broadly-worded search warrants authorizing the seizure of . . . evidence” relating to the specific crime(s) charged). Drawing on the language and reasoning of the Eighth Circuit, we upheld the warrant finding that the “general description sufficed because the exact identity of the evidence to be seized could not have been known at the time 10 the warrant issued and because the warrant limited the search to evidence of [the relevant crime(s)].” Id. (citing United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 792 (8th Cir. 1980)). Similarly, in this case, the warrants authorized seizure of a number of items, such as documents, records, bills, logs, computer equipment, and so forth, which [are] evidence of a criminal violation of the laws of the State of Florida. A list of the pertinent crimes and/or statutes followed that language, including, for example, bad faith manufacture, purchase, sale, or delivery of anabolic steroids by prescription, which are controlled substances, and distribution and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, among others. Because the descriptions in the warrants refer to items that are evidence of a violation of certain statutes relating to the sale of controlled substances, the items were described with sufficient particularity to allow Wright, a seasoned law enforcement officer, to identify the things to be seized. See United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 754-55 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 (1984) (stating that a warrant’s description need not contain elaborate specificity; it is sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things authorized to be seized). In sum, the warrants described with sufficient particularity the place to be 11 searched and the items to be seized. Accordingly, Wright did not violate plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right, and he is entitled to qualified immunity for the unlawful seizure claim.