Opinion ID: 1144829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Nature Of The Evidence Sought.

Text: While the language of the warrant itself would justify the reproof of a portion of the warrant, we also find support for this conclusion from an examination of the second factor, i.e., whether and to what extent the execution of the warrant could have impinged upon vital individual rights. The warrant did not serve to deter the police from rummaging through all of the personal effects, private papers, and photographs, in or about the tent occupied by defendants-appellants as there was no direction to either seize or not to seize any, some, or all of these articles. Where a search and seizure may touch upon areas protected by the First Amendment or the right to privacy, we believe courts should be vigilant with respect to the sufficiency of the description of seizable items. [17] United States v. Torch, 609 F.2d 1088 (1979), cert. denied May 19, 1980, ___ U.S. ___, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d ___ (1980); People v. Raicevich, 61 Ill. App.3d 143, 146, 18 Ill.Dec. 630, 633, 377 N.E.2d 1266, 1269 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 963, 99 S.Ct. 2409, 60 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1979); United States v. Scharfman, 448 F.2d 1352, 1354 (2d Cir.1971); see Berger v. New York, supra, 388 U.S. at 56, 87 S.Ct. at 1882 (1967); Stanford v. Texas, supra, 379 U.S. at 486, 85 S.Ct. at 512 (1964); McKenna, The Constitutional Protection Of Private Papers: The Role Of A Hierarchical Fourth Amendment, 53 Ind.L.J. 55, 67-72, 76-80 (1977-78) [hereinafter cited as Private Papers ]; cf. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969). The intrusion here was especially egregious because the articles sought were those things in which an individual has strong privacy interests  those related to identification, which sets him apart from others. See Private Papers, supra at 68-69; cf. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 253, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1448, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 211, 93 S.Ct. 739, 756, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973) (Douglas, J., concurring); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 511-12, 89 S.Ct. 733, 739, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958); Jech v. Burch, 466 F. Supp. 714, 719 (D.Haw. 1979).