Opinion ID: 2009182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Specificity of search warrant

Text: Defendant's argument that the search warrant and accompanying affidavit in the case at bar did not sufficiently describe the place to be searched and items to be seized is without merit. A warrant adequately identifies the place to be searched if the officers thereby are enabled to ascertain and identify the place intended by reasonable effort. State v. Brochu, 237 A.2d 418, 422-23 (Me.1967) (description of place known as the dwelling of Armand A. Brochu adequately describes house, garage, and out-buildings subject to search). The present warrant described with particularity the location of Belfast Dodge and identified the service bays as the area subject to search. Defendant's argument that the warrant did not specify which bays may be searched ignores the fact that the officers had cause to search any and all of the bays. Defendant further argues that the Superior Court should have suppressed all of the items seized pursuant to the search warrant as not having been sufficiently described in the warrant. The Superior Court granted the motion to suppress as to some items; as to the remaining items, we find no reversible error. The attached affidavit supplemented the description contained in the search warrant. See State v. Corbin, 419 A.2d 362 (Me. 1980). That affidavit listed in detail the number and type of auto parts stolen from Lothrop Ford in Belfast, Maine on 12/3/80 and body parts removed from a 1978 Maroon 65 series (2) ton Chevrolet dump truck stolen from Richard Fairbrother of Prospect, Maine. The affidavit contained descriptions such as 10 boxes of spark plugs, 1 R-27 Battery, 3 r-55 Batteries.... Under the circumstances, those descriptions were sufficiently detailed. The entry is: Superior Court's dismissal of the indictments in Docket Nos. CR-83-12, 14, and 15 vacated. Superior Court's judgments of conviction in Docket Nos. CR-83-13 and 16 vacated. Cases remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.