Court Opinion

ID: 9538157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:31:21.234483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:35.014058
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in all that is set forth in the majority opinion in this case. An examination of the record discloses that the Warrant for Search and Seizure which was issued in this case contains no description of the property which the officers theoritically were authorized to search for and seize if found. Rule 40(c), W.R.Cr.P., requires that information to be included in the search warrant. As the United States *135Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has said:
“ * * * Search warrants are required to particularly describe the things to be seized and officers executing the warrant are authorized to seize only the property described. A general search is not permitted. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431; Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231; Seymour v. United States, 10 Cir., 369 F.2d 825, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1297, 18 L.Ed.2d 239. * * *” Mesmer v. United States, 405 F.2d 316 (10th Cir. 1969).
While the appellant did not assert this defect in this case, it is subject to notice pursuant to Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P. Such a defect has the potential to nullify any criminal prosecution, and law enforcement officers, judges and commissioners should be alert to notice whether the search warrant proper, as well as the supporting affidavits, adequately describes the property to be seized.