Opinion ID: 2972575
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Errors In Affidavit

Text: In determining whether an affidavit sufficiently describes the location subject to search, we -7- No. 04-5666 United States v. Durham consider “whether the place to be searched is described with sufficient particularity as to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premises might be mistakenly searched.” United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d 1490, 1496 (6th Cir. 1989). We take into account the officer’s personal knowledge of the place to be searched. Id. at 1497. The description need not be technically accurate in every detail. United States v. Pelayo-Landero, 285 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2002). In this case, Officer Petra’s affidavit provided a detailed description of Durham’s residence, a trailer. It described the location as “Harold Durham’s Residence.” It provided detailed directions from the Estill County Courthouse to the residence. It described the appearance of the driveway, the large wood front porch, the room built onto the back of the trailer, the color of the trailer, and the vehicles in the driveway. We upheld a similarly detailed description in Pelayo-Landero. There, we favorably noted that the description included specific directions to the defendant’s mobile home, and that the affidavit described the trailer’s color, wooden deck, and air conditioning unit. Id. The Government admits that the affidavit incorrectly listed Durham’s address as “993 Dry Branch Rd.” instead of “995 Dry Branch Rd.” This error does not require suppression. Under similar circumstances, we have held that “additional circumstances make clear that the inaccuracies in the warrant would not lead to a mistaken search of other premises.” United States v. Durk, 149 F.3d 464, 466 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that affiant officer’s involvement in executing search warrant validated search warrant listing incorrect address). Officer Petra and Captain Cox both had personal knowledge of Durham’s residence, and both participated in the search. The police searched the residence they intended to search. In light of these facts, the warrant sufficiently identified -8- No. 04-5666 United States v. Durham Durham’s residence.