Opinion ID: 435908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Particularity of the Description

Text: 13 The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This requirement of particularity prevents general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), but elaborate specificity is unnecessary. The description is considered sufficiently particular when it enables the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things authorized to be seized. United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1981). The standard is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety. United States v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir.1976). 14 The property in this case was described in each warrant as follows: 15 all financial records, including but not limited to all documents showing source and amount of income and disbursement, and patient records, limited to those records showing the dates of patient visits, all diagnostic tests performed and results obtained, diagnoses made, medications prescribed and the name of the diagnosing physician, from on or about June 15, 1981 [January 1, 1982], to the present which are evidence of violations of Title 21, United States Codes, Section 841(a)(1). 16 This description prevented a general search and was as specific as the circumstances and nature of the activity permitted. See, United States v. Slocum, 708 F.2d 587 (11th Cir.1983).