Cal: Indicia warrant was proper

The search warrant seeking personal property on the premises that would identify defendant as having control over the property was not overbroad. It was necessary for the prosecution to establish defendant’s connection to the property. People v. Bryant, 2014 Cal. LEXIS 6110 (August 25, 2014):

Bryant also contends the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad because it authorized the police officers to seize “[a]ny articles or personal property tending to establish the identity of persons who have dominion and control over the premises.” “Whether a warrant’s description of property to be seized is sufficiently particular is a question of law subject to independent review by an appellate court. [Citation.] In considering whether a warrant is sufficiently particular, courts consider the purpose of the warrant, the nature of the items sought, and ‘the total circumstances surrounding the case.’ [Citation.] A warrant that permits a search broad in scope may be appropriate under some circumstances, and the warrant’s language must be read in context and with common sense.” (People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 133–134 [134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795, 266 P.3d 301].) We recently rejected a similar claim in Eubanks. As in that case, the warrant here was sufficiently particularized under the circumstances. At the time the warrant was requested, police could not have realistically described the personal property with any greater particularity, and it was necessary to establish Bryant’s control over any evidence seized. (See id. at pp. 134–135; People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 575 [286 Cal. Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893].)