Opinion ID: 2982742
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seizure of the Suspected “Spice”

Text: Libretti contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the DEA seized his legal herbs. Woodson, at the time, suspected that the herbs were illegal spice. Typically, the government may not seize property unless it has been particularly described within a search warrant; however, “the degree of specificity required [within a warrant] is flexible and will vary depending on the crime involved and the types of items sought.” United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1383 (6th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, items that are “reasonably related to the offense which formed the basis for the search warrant” may also be seized. Wheeler v. City of Lansing, 660 F.3d 931, 939 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, any seizure of property must be “objectively unreasonable” before a plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity. Luster v. City of Gallatin, 50 F. App’x 189, 191 (6th Cir. 2002). Libretti argues that “the warrant did not authorize the seizure of legal herbs, or any substance for that matter.” Appellant’s Br. at 32. One of the charges underlying the search warrant, however, was “Possession with Intent to Distribute [a] Controlled Substance.” (Id. at PageID # 416.) At the time of the search, spice was a Schedule I Controlled Substance. It is unquestionable that spice is reasonably related to the crime of Possession with Intent to Distribute. That Libretti’s criminal indictment pertained to methamphetamine (and not spice) is of no consequence. It is also unavailing that Woodson incorrectly identified the legal herbs as illegal spice. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 248 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that officers were justified in seizing a marijuana stem, even though, as they later discovered, it was from the mature stalk, and therefore not illegal). It is impossible to distinguish, with the naked eye, between legal herbs and those that have been chemically altered. Woodson was aware that 7 No. 14-3266 Libretti was selling spice, and spice had been found at Libretti’s Wyoming home. Under these circumstances, it was not “objectively unreasonable” for Woodson to seize Libretti’s herbs. Thus, Woodson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this seizure. Libretti also contends that the seizure of certain documents violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The warrant, however, specifically authorized the seizure of documents and records that may be evidence of Libretti’s criminal activities. Libretti’s argument that the documents seized were not obviously evidence of any crime is without merit. Because the items seized in the search of Libretti’s Ohio home were either authorized by the warrant or reasonably related to the underlying charge, Woodson is entitled to qualified immunity.