CA6: SW for person by alias and description was valid when he was under surveillance from issuance to execution

Warrants are usually directed at places and things not people, but here was a search warrant directed at defendant by his known alias and description. From the time it was issued until it was executed, defendant was under surveillance. It was not a general warrant. United States v. Perez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2015):

Defendant argues that the warrant for his person effectively had no geographical limitation. This is a mischaracterization both of how the warrant was written and how the police executed it. The police were following Defendant from Gina’s Drive-Thru. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, as we must, Defendant was on his way back to the residence, but changed course upon observing police executing a search warrant of the residence. Hill, 195 F.3d at 264. The evidence indicates that police would have seized and searched Defendant at the residence had he not attempted to evade the police. If we are to accept Defendant’s argument that the warrant had no geographical limitation, that would be tantamount to saying a suspect can affect the constitutionality of a warrant by fleeing. The particular facts of this case, whereby police maintained constant surveillance of a suspect reasonably described in a warrant, who leaves the premises to be searched and then is obviously returning to those premises, support the validity of the warrant here.

Defendant argues that the warrant was not “as specific as possible given the circumstances.” Specifically, Defendant argues that the warrant could have noted his approximate age, eye color, hair length, facial hair, distinguishing features, or the presence or absence of tattoos or earrings. As to distinguishing features, including tattoos and earrings, the lack of their notation most likely indicates their absence. It could also indicate that the police had not noticed any such features. There is no requirement that the warrant must be completely accurate. Eye color is not a trait that is easily observable from a distance. Approximate age is not necessarily an easy estimation; the inclusion of an incorrect guess could make the warrant misleading. Hair length and facial hair are mutable features and, therefore, minimally useful for the purposes and protections of a warrant. In short, there is no indication that the warrant was not “as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.” Hanna, 661 F.3d at 286.