Opinion ID: 588821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Particularity

Text: 33 Beaumont finally argues that the warrant lacks the required specificity to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of particularity in describing the items to be seized. See U.S. Const. Amendment IV (warrant must particularly describ[e] the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized). The test that is applied requires a court to ask if the description in the warrant would permit an executing officer to reasonably know what items are to be seized. See Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503-04, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925) (warrant must allow searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify thing sought). The warrant contained only a generalized statement that evidence of the commission of a criminal offense as well as contraband abd [sic ] the fruits of crime were to be seized. It was, however, accompanied by Smith's affidavit which contained a detailed description of the items sought. The United States argues that the mere accompaniment of the Smith affidavit is sufficient to permit this court to find the warrant in compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. We disagree. 34 General warrants have long been abhorred in the jurisprudence of both England and the United States. See generally United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 847-50 (2nd Cir.1990) (Weinstein, District Judge, dissenting ) (providing concise and cogent historical analysis of abhorrence of general warrants in England and United States). [P]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed. United States v. United States District Court, E.D. Mich., S. Div., 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). In order to have this court uphold the seizures here, the government invokes the general propositions that a warrant must be read as a whole and that the particularity requirement may be satisfied by reference to the affidavit. These propositions are no doubt true, yet examination of the cases cited by the government in their support indicate the propositions do not apply to the facts of this case. In United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 736 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 30, 1981), the search warrant particularly described some evidence but did not so describe other evidence. We upheld the partial validity of the warrant because the warrant had referred to the affidavit and was accompanied by it. Id.; See United States v. Womack, 509 F.2d 368, 382 (D.C.Cir.1974) (The warrant incorporates by express reference the underlying affidavit attached thereto which quite specifically details the records and documents to be obtained in the search.) (emphasis in parenthetical added ). In United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. Unit A July 8, 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 1721, 72 L.Ed.2d 140 (1982), a warrant was challenged on appeal due to an alleged generality in the description of the place to be searched. 649 F.2d at 1156. 11 Finding the warrant sufficient, we held: 35 If an objective reading of the description contained on the face of the warrant did not fairly direct attention to the place actually searched, we would be compelled to hold the search illegal without further discussion. An insufficient warrant cannot be cured by the most detailed affidavit. If, as is the case here, the warrant is ambiguous, but fairly directs attention to the place actually searched, and, if the affidavit supporting the warrant is attached to the warrant when issued, the affidavit may be considered to clarify an ambiguity on the face of the warrant. [citation omitted ]. The affidavit must be attached to the warrant so that the executing officer and the person whose premises are to be searched both have the information contained in the affidavit in addition to what is said on the face of the warrant. 36 Haydel, 649 F.2d at 1157. Finally, the government misreads the facts of Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). In Andresen, the Supreme Court reasoned that the inclusion of a generalized descriptive phrase did not invalidate a seizure where such a phrase appears in each warrant at the end of a sentence containing a lengthy list of specified and particular items to be seized.... 427 U.S. at 480, 96 S.Ct. at 2748 (emphasis added ). 37 From the above discussion, it is clear the cases require that in order for a warrant to meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the warrant itself must, at a minimum, contain something more than the absolute generality appearing on the face of the warrant at issue here. Moreover, although there is arguably some conflict between Cook and Haydel on this point, we feel the better rule, in agreement with the District of Colombia Circuit, see Womack, supra, as well as other circuits, 12 is to require that the warrant contain, at the very least, a cursory reference to the affidavit upon which an executing officer may have to rely. This requirement is far from burdensome, and in light of the importance of the protections safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment, we hold that where a warrant contains only the barest of generalized statements the particularity requirement is satisfied by reliance on an affidavit when the affidavit is incorporated by reference into the warrant. We do not hold, however, that absent such an incorporation the warrant must necessarily fail. Were we to so rule, we would be creating a technical, bright-line rule of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This we decline to do. 38 In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the Supreme Court held that where a warrant lacked sufficient probable cause to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, good faith reliance upon the warrant by the executing officer precludes the necessity of suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to the exclusionary rule. 468 U.S. at 922, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. The Court noted that the officer's reliance on the magistrate's probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable. Id. (citation omitted ). On the same day that Leon was decided, the Court issued its opinion in Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). In Sheppard, the respondent argued that a general warrant authorizing a search for controlled substances 13 violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. 468 U.S. at 987, 104 S.Ct. at 3427. The warrant was accompanied by a detailed affidavit indicating that items relating to a homicide were to be searched for. 14 Id. at 985, 104 S.Ct. at 3426. The issuing magistrate and the executing officers knew the contents of the affidavit and thus knew what was to be searched for. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 964-65, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3448, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (Stevens, J. concurring as to Sheppard and dissenting as to Leon ). Relying on its decision in Leon, the Court reasoned that the only issue before it was whether the officers reasonably believed that the search they conducted was authorized by a valid warrant. Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 988, 104 S.Ct. at 3427. Because none of the parties disputed the belief of the officers that the warrant was valid, the Court stated the only question [remaining] is whether there was an objectively reasonable basis for the officers' mistaken belief. Id. Finding the belief that the warrant was valid to be an objectively reasonable belief, the Court noted that the affidavit had been approved by the U.S. Attorney, the issuing magistrate had made a probable cause determination and that the magistrate had assured the officers the warrant would be made valid on its face by the insertion of minor corrections. Id. at 989, 104 S.Ct. at 3428. Significantly, the Court observed: 39 Indeed, Sheppard admits that if the judge had crossed out the reference to controlled substances, written see attached affidavit on the form, and attached the affidavit to the warrant, the warrant would have been valid. [citations omitted ]. 40 Sheppard, 468 U.S. at 990 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. at 3429 n. 7. 41 In the instant case, there was a probable cause determination made by the state judge, the affidavit provided specific information of the objects of the search, the executing officer was the affiant, 15 the additional officers making the search knew what was to be searched for, and, finally, the warrant could easily have been made valid by the insertion of the phrase see attached affidavit. The Supreme Court's decision in Sheppard, applying the holding of Leon in the context of a general warrant, leads us to conclude that, under the facts of this case, the officers good faith reliance 16 upon the warrant was objectively reasonable. The motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant and attached affidavit was properly denied. Thus endeth the Fourth Amendment issues.