Opinion ID: 1392855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Warrant Defects

Text: Appellant next argues that the search warrant violated the warrant statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (1985), and therefore the evidence seized should have been suppressed. We disagree. Under the heading for a description of property to be seized, the warrant reads: beige and brown doublewide mobile home with a sattalite [sic] in the yard off S45-338[;] last mobile home on the left on the dirt road. The accompanying affidavit lists the property subject to seizure as any illegal drugs. Obviously, the warrant erroneously contained a description of the residence to be searched under the heading of property to be seized. We have previously held that a warrant may be read in connection with the supporting affidavit to satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements of particularity in the description of the place to be searched. State v. Ellis , 263 S.C. 12, 207 S.E. (2d) 408 (1974); State v. Crane, supra . The issue now before us is whether State v. Ellis should be extended to allow the warrant and affidavit to be read concurrently to supply the statutorily-required identification of the property to be seized. We find no reason why a concurrent reading of warrant and affidavit should not be permissible to establish the identification of the property to be seized. Read together, the warrant and affidavit here clearly establish that the property the law enforcement officer sought to seize pursuant to the warrant was illegal drugs. Appellant next argues that even if the warrant and affidavit may be read together, the description any illegal drugs failed to state with sufficient particularity the property to be seized. We disagree. The warrant statute requires only a warrant identifying the property to be seized. § 17-13-140, supra. The statute certainly requires no more than the federal and state constitutions, both of which require warrants to particularly describe the things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV; S.C. Const. art. I, § 10. The particular description requirement is aimed at preventing general warrants  those authorizing a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings. Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed. (2d) 564, 582 (1971). See also United States v. Sierra , 585 F. Supp. 1236 (D.N.J. 1984), aff'd 755 F. (2d) 925 (3d Cir.1984); State v. Sullivan , 277 S.C. 35, 282 S.E. (2d) 838 (1981). By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit. Maryland v. Garrison , 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 1017, 94 L.Ed. (2d) 72, 80 (1987). Numerous courts have upheld warrants bearing generic descriptions quite similar to any illegal drugs against constitutional attacks on the particularity of the description. See, e.g., United States v. Sierra, supra (controlled dangerous substances); Carlton v. State , 449 So. (2d) 250 (1984) (all controlled substances); State v. Quintana , 87 N.M. 414, 534 P. (2d) 1126 (Ct. App.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 832, 96 S.Ct. 54, 46 L.Ed. (2d) 50 (1975) (all controlled substances); State v. Foye , 14 N.C. App. 200, 188 S.E. (2d) 67 (1972) (narcotic drugs, the possession of which is a crime); Gonzales v. State , 577 S.W. (2d) 226 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied 444 U.S. 853, 100 S.Ct. 109, 62 L.Ed. (2d) 71 (1979) (drugs or dangerous drugs ... being unlawfully kept and possessed ...); State v. Stewart , 129 Vt. 175, 274 A. (2d) 500 (1971) (contraband, to wit, regulated drugs). A more particular description including the terms marijuana or cocaine or both would not have limited the scope of the search of appellant's property nor markedly reduced the likelihood of an indiscriminate rummaging through [his] personal effects. United States v. Sierra , 585 F. Supp. at 1242, quoting United States v. Perez , 562 F. Supp. 574, 577 (D.N.J. 1982). The warrant here allowed seizure of a limited class of property; illegal drugs is not such a general term that it allows for abuse and unbridled discretion by law enforcement personnel or allows for a `general search' ... Carlton v. State , 449 So. (2d) at 252. Appellant's remaining exceptions are dismissed as meritless pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23. See State v. Crane, supra ; State v. Ellis, supra (particularity requirement in description of property to be searched); State v. Wise , 272 S.C. 384, 252 S.E. (2d) (1979) (state's failure to fulfill ministerial requirement of filing return within 10 days does not void warrant where defendant shows no prejudice from delay). Appellant's convictions and sentences are Affirmed. GREGORY, C.J., and CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.