S.D.Ala.: SW for drugs doesn’t need to mention firearms to seize them when found

A search warrant for drugs doesn’t have to mention firearms to seize them. Firearms and drugs are usually linked, and there is a reasonable inference that the presence of firearms around drugs means they are related to each other. United States v. Phothisat, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141753 (S.D. Ala. October 6, 2014):

Defendant asserts that the search warrant affidavit does not provide probable cause for the seizure of firearms. He correctly points out that the affidavit does not connect the dots between the illegal activity and the seizure of firearms. Specifically, the search warrant permits the seizure of firearms even though nothing in the affidavit connects firearms with the residence to be searched. Nevertheless, the seizure of the firearms was not unlawful. United States v. Prather, 279 Fed. Appx. (11th Cir. 2008), involved a similar situation. In that case, police executed search warrants on two separate occasions permitting searches for drugs and items related to the sale, manufacture or distribution of drugs. Firearms were not mentioned in either search warrant but were seized during each search. The defendant argued that the firearms should have been excluded from evidence because police exceeded the scope of the search warrant. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, stating: “[T]he police did not err in confiscating weapons when they found them. When law enforcement officers stumble across hidden guns during a lawful search for drugs, they are allowed to draw the reasonable inference that the guns may be related to drug trafficking occurring at the location. That is precisely what the police did in this case.” Id. at 766. (citing United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir.1990)). The same is true here.