Opinion ID: 2185565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Particularity and Overbreadth

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no warrants shall issue except those particularly describing the place to be searched, and the    things to be seized (US Const 4th Amend). To meet the particularity requirement, the warrant's directive must be specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer ( People v Darling, 95 NY2d 530, 537 [citing Andresen v Maryland, 427 US 463, 480; Marron v United States, 275 US 192, 196]). The requirement was designed to prohibit law enforcement agents from undertaking a general exploratory search of a person's belongings ( see, Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 467). Indeed, indiscriminate searches pursuant to general warrants were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment ( Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 583). [1] Contrary to the People's contention, we hold that the warrant's final directive, authorizing the search for any otherproperty the possession of which would be considered contraband was overbroad. It granted the executing officers unfettered discretion to look anywhere and seize anything they thought would be considered contraband. Had this been the only directive, the warrant would fail for lack of particularity and any evidence seized under it would be suppressed ( e.g., People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396, 405).