Opinion ID: 221216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Description of premises to be searched

Text: The district court considered the warrants’ description of the premises meager, stating that the warrants simply identify a street address and briefly describe the building. However, as this Court has noted, a search warrant’s description is 7 sufficient if it enables an officer to ascertain and identify, with reasonable effort, the place intended to be searched. United States v. Ellis, 971 F.2d 701, 703 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Specifically, a warrant's description of the place to be searched is not required to meet technical requirements or have the specificity sought by conveyancers. The warrant need only describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity to direct the searcher, to confine his examination to the place described, and to advise those being searched of his authority. Id. (quoting United States v. Burke, 784 F.2d 1090, 1093 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1174 (1986)). In addition, “[i]n evaluating the effect [that an error or deficiency in the warrant has] on the sufficiency of [the] warrant, this Court has also taken into account the knowledge of the officer executing the warrant, even where such knowledge was not reflected in the warrant or in the affidavit supporting the warrant.” Burke, 784 F.2d at 1092-93. The search warrants at issue contain the addresses of the buildings to be searched and describe the buildings, such as their entryways and doors. For example, the Kuhl Avenue warrant states that the building is two stories, is painted beige with red trim, can be accessed to the East from Columbia street, has two public entrances, has two sets of double glass doors containing the street address (“1200) and the Signature Pharmacy logo, and has a loading dock on the south 8 side. Wright, an executor of the search warrants, had been investigating Signature for nearly two years. The addresses and descriptions of the buildings, in conjunction with Wright’s knowledge, were sufficient to enable the officers to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort. See Burke, 784 F.2d at 1092-93. Moreover, the fact that the warrants do not indicate that the building is a multiple-occupancy structure with offices unaffiliated with Signature and do not describe the particular floor, office, suites, or subunits to be searched does not necessarily render the warrants facially invalid. Even if failure to describe with particularity the floor, office, suites, or subunits to be searched caused law enforcement to conduct a search of other tenants’ offices, that would not constitute a violation of these Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (highlighting that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (noting that a defendant must demonstrate a personal expectation of privacy in the place searched to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment). The places to be searched were described with sufficient particularity, and the warrants were not so facially deficient in that regard that Wright could not reasonably presume them to be valid. See Groh, 540 U.S. at 565. 9