CA3: Search warrant’s reference to “items of evidentiary value” was limited to that referred to in the attached affidavit

Search warrant’s reference to “items of evidentiary value” was limited to that referred to in the attached affidavit of the officer which was “evidence of burglary, theft, or receipt of stolen property” reported stolen by others. United States v. Ballard, 551 Fed. Appx. 33 (3d Cir. 2014):

Here, the First Local Warrant incorporated by reference Detective Sloan’s affidavit, which was directed solely to the investigation of stolen goods at the Safeguard facility. Thus, the warrant only authorized the executing officers to search for evidence of burglary, theft, or receipt of stolen property relating to the items that were reported stolen by Safeguard’s customers. When read in context, the phrase “any other items of evidentiary value” did not invalidate the First Local Warrant. See United States v. Am. Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1106 (3d Cir. 1989) (“Because the items to be seized were described with sufficient particularity, the general tail, which is not read in isolation, does not render the warrant invalid.”).