Opinion ID: 1144829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Complexity Of The Crime Being Investigated.

Text: Finally, we consider the matter of whether the complexity and magnitude of the crime being investigated might have made it difficult to particularly describe the things to be seized. We find it did not. This case bears no similarity to Andresen, for example, where a complicated land fraud scheme was the subject of investigation. The broad language in the Andresen warrant was undoubtedly influenced by the intricacy of the illicit scheme involved. The facts and crimes here were relatively uncomplicated and a dilution of the express mandate for particularity is not in order. As noted earlier, the bare language of a warrant directing seizure of articles of personal property tending to establish .. identification ... may support a conclusion that a portion of the warrant was bereft of a constitutionally demanded description. That the authorized search was especially intrusive into areas entitled to special protection and that the relatively uncomplicated nature of the offenses under investigation could not mitigate a deviation from a strict adherence to the wording of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Hawaii constitution have also been shown. Consequently, the language of the search warrant directing search for and seizure of articles of personal property tending to establish ... identification ... clearly violated the requirement that a search warrant particularly describe things to be seized. We are cognizant of the difficulty of a priori decisions on what is likely to be found at private premises and what may serve to link suspected criminals with the fruits, instrumentalities, and other evidence of crime. However, a constitutionally imposed necessity for specificity precludes a ratification of warrant provisions ostensibly permitting the seizure of practically every article of personal property at a given location. Following the Supreme Court, [i]n any event we cannot forgive the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in the name of law enforcement. Berger v. New York, supra, 388 U.S. at 62, 87 S.Ct. at 1885.