Commonwealth v. Valerio, 449 Mass. 562, 870 N.E.2d 46 (2007):
The target of a search present at the scene has no right under the Fourth Amendment to actual service of the search warrant or to see it before the warrant is executed:
The Fourth Amendment does not require that an individual be given a copy of the warrant before the commencement of a search of his or her property. See United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98-99 (2006), citing Groh v. Ramirez, supra at 562 n.5. Although it is established that art. 14 does require police officers to have a copy of a search warrant with them at the time they conduct a search, see Commonwealth v. Guaba, 417 Mass. 746, 754 (1994), we have never required that the entire warrant be shown, read to, or understood by an individual who may be present and whose property is about to be searched. See Commonwealth v. Mullane, 445 Mass. 702, 707 (2006) (police entered lobby of building, quickly displayed warrant through glass sliding window, and used battering ram to enter internal door; this court held that “the officers’ actions were proper”). As we observed in Commonwealth v. Gauthier, 425 Mass. 37 (1997), “[t]he warrant procedure does not contemplate that the person to whom the warrant is presented should be able to judge from that presentation at the time of execution its full legality and perhaps to decide on that basis whether or not to comply. Rather, it is intended to notify that person that the officers have been authorized to be in that particular place and to search for that particular thing.” Id. at 43, citing Matter of the Application of Lafayette Academy, Inc., 610 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1979).
Also, the particularity requirement of the search warrant in this case was defective, but it was saved by the incorporated and attached affidavit:
3. There is no question that the search warrant in the instant case failed, on its face, to meet the demands of particularity required by G. L. c. 276, § 2, art. 14, and the Fourth Amendment. The eight-page affidavit, however, which was stamped on every page by the assistant clerk-magistrate, incorporated by reference into the warrant, and attached to the warrant at the time it was issued, was more than sufficiently detailed. The affidavit remained attached to the warrant as it was brought to the premises and was available during the execution of the search to inform the defendant of the limits of the search. We conclude that the warrant, while technically defective, met the substantive requirements of particularity under G. L. c. 276, § 2, art. 14, and the Fourth Amendment. Despite the technical violation, the search of the apartment was not an unlawful general search. See Commonwealth v. Sheppard, 394 Mass. 381, 390-391 (1985).
Defendant’s challenge to search did not include an earlier warrantless entry that he should have challenged. Thus, the trial court did not err in considering the first entry as a part of the probable cause calculus. Exigent circumstances were lacking from an entry to seize a non-working meth lab in a gym bag that had been reported by the defendant’s adult daughter; defendant was in jail and no true emergency existed. The later search warrant, however, was validly issued. State v. Geraghty, 38 Kan. App. 2d 114, 163 P.3d 350 (2007).
Patdown for weapons went into defendant’s tight pants into his butt crack for crack. The scope of the frisk was unlawful, and the search is suppressed because there could not possibly have been a weapon there. State v. Barnett, 2007 Ohio 3694, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3364 (2d Dist. July 20, 2007):
[*P20] Here the testimony reflected that Barnett’s pants were so tight that they could not even pat down the area of his buttocks from outside his clothing, and that it was necessary to pull his pants up and unbutton them in order to get into the area to retrieve the baggie of cocaine. And, Detective House gave no testimony that would establish that he might expect to find a weapon secreted there. In fact, an abstract of cases in this district would indicate that it is, instead, very common that crack cocaine is kept in such location, rather than weapons. Therefore, there is no evidence before the court that would tend to establish that a search of that area was necessary to discover a hidden weapon.
