Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search of the Fishers' mobile home

Text: 81 On the morning of the July 20, 1988 raids, officers searched the suspected lab sites and the residences of Russell and Mary Sullivan and Steve Brown pursuant to search warrants issued by the District Judge of McCurtain County. The warrants authorized the seizure of specified contraband, lab equipment, and other described personal property. At about the same time, the officers also searched the mobile home of Tammy and Eugene Fisher, located approximately 50 yards from the Sullivan's residence. 82 The law enforcement officers characterized their search of the Fisher's mobile home as a protective sweep, intended to assure their safety. IX R. at 19. Later that day the state officers obtained a further search warrant for the Fisher's residence and returned to carry out a comprehensive search of it. 28 The defendants contend that the initial search of the Fisher's mobile home was unlawful and that it tainted the seizure later that afternoon of evidence introduced at trial and used against defendant Eugene Fisher. 83 On this appeal, the government responds to the claims of error in the admission of evidence from the Fisher's mobile home and of alleged error in denial of suppression, arguing also the protective sweep theory. On examination of the affidavit and search warrant, we are persuaded that the protective sweep theory need not be reached. The trial judge was correct in his denial of suppression because, we conclude, the initial search warrant was supported by probable cause clearly shown by the affidavit of Officer Means. Moreover, the initial warrant adequately described the mobile home and authorized its search. 29 The property description specifically covers a white mobile home and says it is one facing west with a redwood deck. It is true that in the concluding portion of the search warrant authorizing search there is a provision for search of said person, vehicle and/or house, building and premises, the curtilage thereof.... Despite this singular reference to house, we feel the warrant should be read in a practical sense and as a whole. Doing so, we hold that the warrant and authorization were intended to cover the mobile home. The phrase last quoted would appear to be a standard form of language of a boilerplate sort, and this should be read with the particular description of the property in the earlier part of the warrant. 84 In sum, we are convinced that the trial judge properly denied suppression of the unfiled or draft income tax return, firearms and truck seized at the Fisher's mobile home. 85