Opinion ID: 1060855
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Warrant

Text: The defendant next contends that the search warrant is unconstitutional because it failed to adequately specify the items to be located during the search of the premises. The State responds that the search warrant adequately delineated the items for which a search had been authorized. We agree. Under the Fourth Amendment a search warrant must contain a particular description of the items to be seized. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927). Likewise, Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution prohibits general warrants, and, in addition, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-103 (1997 Repl.), specifically requires that search warrants describe the property to be seized with particularity. See Lea v. State, supra ; Hampton v. State, 148 Tenn. 155, 252 S.W. 1007 (1923). The constitutional prohibition against general warrants is designed to limit governmental intrusion upon a citizen's privacy and property rights to only that shown to the magistrate to be necessary and to limit the discretion of the officer conducting the search. Marron, supra ; Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 4.6(a) (3rd ed. 1996)(hereinafter LaFave). To satisfy the particularity requirement, a warrant `must enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized.' State v. Meeks, 867 S.W.2d 361, 367 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1993) (quoting United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1981)). However, as this Court stated in Lea , [W]here the purpose of the search is to find specific property, it should be so particularly described as to preclude the possibility of seizing any other. On the other hand, if the purpose be to seize not specified property, but any property of a specified character which, by reason of its character, and of the place where and the circumstances under which it may be found, if found at all, would be illicit, a description, save as to such character, place and circumstances, would be unnecessary, and ordinarily impossible. 181 Tenn. at 382-83,181 S.W.2d at 352-53 (emphasis added). The warrant issued in this case authorized a search for crack cocaine, illegal narcotics, pictures, records, ledgers, tapes or items that tend to memorialize [sic] drug sales and proceeds therefrom. In our view, the warrant describes the character of the property subject to seizure with sufficient particularity to enable the searcher to reasonably ascertain and identify the things which are authorized to be seized. See Melson, 638 S.W.2d at 353; State v. Meadows, 745 S.W.2d 886, 891 (Tenn. Crim.App.1987). Accordingly, the warrant is not unconstitutionally general and the defendant's claim is without merit.