Opinion ID: 2045025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Particularity of Description of Items to Be Seized

Text: We next address whether the warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. It is well established that, in a search warrant, [a] minute and detailed description of the property to be seized is not required. People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, 523, 145 N.E. 610 (1924); see also People v. Batac, 259 Ill.App.3d 415, 420, 197 Ill.Dec. 370, 631 N.E.2d 373 (1994); People v. Allbritton, 150 Ill.App.3d 545, 546, 103 Ill.Dec. 936, 502 N.E.2d 83 (1986). Rather, the property must be so definitely described that the officer making the search will not seize the wrong property. Prall, 314 Ill. at 523, 145 N.E. 610; see also Batac, 259 Ill.App.3d at 420, 197 Ill.Dec. 370, 631 N.E.2d 373; Allbritton, 150 Ill.App.3d at 546, 103 Ill.Dec. 936, 502 N.E.2d 83. Generally, when property of a specified nature is to be seized rather than particular property then a description of its characteristics is sufficient. Curry, 56 Ill.2d at 171, 306 N.E.2d 292, citing Prall, 314 Ill. at 523, 145 N.E. 610. Here, the warrant described the items to be seized as methamphetamine[,] records of drug transactions[,] drug paraphernalia[,] and United States currency. The warrant thus was not directed at particular property, but rather at items associated with the use, manufacture, and distribution of methamphetamineitems which, as the appellate court noted in Reynolds' appeal, are easily identified as contraband by a trained officer. Reynolds, 358 Ill.App.3d at 295, 294 Ill.Dec. 778, 831 N.E.2d 1103; see also United States v. Wicks, 995 F.2d 964, 973-74 (10th Cir.1993) (collecting cases in which general descriptions of drug-related items in warrants were deemed sufficiently particular). Furthermore, defendants have provided us with no indication that it would have been possible to provide a more precise description of the items to be seized at the time the warrant was issued. Cf. People v. Capuzi, 308 Ill.App.3d 425, 432-33, 242 Ill.Dec. 41, 720 N.E.2d 662 (1999) (particularity of description insufficient where property to be seized consisted of items stolen in robbery and officer who obtained warrant could have, but did not, utilize additional information collected during investigation to provide more detailed description of items). Accordingly, we conclude that the warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity.