Opinion ID: 807964
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of the Seizure

Text: The Marcilises also argue that the police officers violated the Marcilises’ Fourth Amendment rights during the searches by seizing property in excess of the scope of the search warrant. “It is well-settled that items to be seized pursuant to a search warrant must be described with particularity . . . . However, . . . even evidence not described in a search warrant may be seized if it is reasonably related to the offense which formed the No. 11-1073 Marcilis, et al. v. Twp. of Redford, et al. Page 15 basis for the search warrant.” United States v. Wright, 343 F.3d 849, 863 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Marcilises complain that the federal agents and the police officers took money, three cars, jewelry, personal effects, permits to carry concealed weapons, bills, and personal photographs. The specific bills and photographs that were allegedly taken are not described in detail by the Marcilises. The warrant authorized the federal agents and the police officers to seize: All suspected controlled substances, . . . all monies and valuables derived from the sale of controlled substances and any items obtained through the sale of controlled substances. All firearms and items establishing ownership, control, occupancy or possession of the above-described place. All photographs, photo albums and video cassettes that depict controlled substances and/or proceeds from controlled substances. All bank records, bank statements and safety deposit keys. The money, the jewelry, and the personal effects, are all valuable items or proceeds which fall within the scope of the warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Blair, 214 F.3d 690, 697 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that vehicles, jewelry, and money are “items related to narcotics transactions or the proceeds of narcotics transactions”). Likewise, the police officers may have reasonably believed that any bills seized and photographs taken, as well as the weapons permit, marriage license, and property deed, contained information reasonably related to the sale and the possession of narcotics, possession and ownership of firearms, the depiction of controlled substances and proceeds from controlled substances, and the ownership of the searched homes. See United States v. Savoy, 280 F. App’x 504, 511 (6th Cir. 2008). Moreover, a search does not become invalid merely because some items not covered by a warrant are seized. Rather, an otherwise valid search becomes an impermissible general search only where the searching officers demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the limitations of a search warrant. United States v. Lambert, 771 F.2d 83, 93 (6th Cir. 1985). Though the officers might have been mistaken as to whether the photographs seized were within the scope of the warrant, we cannot conclude that it was a “flagrant disregard” of the warrant limitation to seize photographs pursuant to a warrant that expressly provided for the No. 11-1073 Marcilis, et al. v. Twp. of Redford, et al. Page 16 seizure of “all photographs . . . depict[ing] controlled substances and/or proceeds from controlled substances.” See, e.g., United States v. Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194, 1199 (10th Cir. 1988) (finding that the improper seizure of 667 pieces of property grossly exceeded the scope of the warrant and required suppression of all evidence under the warrant). We find that the district court correctly concluded that police officers are due qualified immunity on this claim.