Opinion ID: 613999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Firearms Seizure

Text: May next argues that the firearms were improperly seized. He argues that because the warrant application only listed specific drugs, and items indicating the possession and sale of controlled substances, and did not specifically list firearms, the seizure of the firearms was outside the warrant’s scope. We do not agree. In United States v. Ward, 171 F.3d 188, 195 (4th Cir. 1999), we stated that “guns are tools of the drug trade and are commonly recognized articles of drug paraphernalia.” Thus, under the plan language of the warrant application, the seizure of firearms was authorized. Moreover, because the officers were lawfully present in the home and the firearms were discovered in the open, they were properly seized under the plain view doctrine. See United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511, 521 (4th Cir. 2010) (describing the scope of the plain view doctrine). 7