Court Opinion

ID: 9742183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:08:11.041772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:29.296810
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GALASSO, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority has prepared a well-reasoned decision on all issues raised by the State with the exception, in my humble opinion, of whether all the property descriptions contained in the search warrants were impermissibly general. On the issue, I concur with the majority in setting forth the appropriate standard of review. Applying that standard to the items set forth in the search warrants, I cannot conclude that the term “golf clubs” is impermissibly general. If this warrant required the seizing of a baseball bat, must it state Louisville Slugger and size? If this warrant required the seizing of a tennis racquet, must it give the brand name and size? I think not. In this case, the warrants were issued based upon a sworn complaint dated November 19, 1997, four days after the burglary of the Kim residence, from which a set of golf clubs was taken. “Jewelry” may be impermissibly broad, as would be “currency,” “burglary,” and “sporting equipment,” but I believe “golf clubs” is sufficiently descriptive and that the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting the warrants to stand as to the term “golf clubs.” My dissent is limited to the term “golf clubs” as contained in the search warrants.