LA3: Typo in SW could be disregarded where the correct place was searched

The search warrant here used a form off a computer, and the officer forgot to put in the correct address, and the two were 2.69 miles apart. The officers went to the place they intended, not the place specified in the search warrant. This was a typographical error, and the correct place was searched. The affiant also made a proper showing for a no-knock entry. State v. Ashworth, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2386 (La.App. 3 Cir. Nov. 25, 2015):

The affidavit seeking the warrant in the present case identified the specific, particular location, including the correct address. Detective Williams completed the affidavit based on three separate marijuana purchases made at 328 North Frusha Drive, a tan, wood frame house with red trim. He met with the SWAT team and told them “what’s going on ….” The SWAT team was already present at 328 North Frusha Drive when Detective Williams arrived. Clearly, the SWAT team was given the address of 328 North Frusha Drive as the location to execute the warrant; had the team relied on the warrant, it would have executed it at 1014 Davis Street.

Enough measures were taken to ensure the search occurred at the correct location and the wrong address on the warrant was a typographical error. The search at the correct address was not “lucky happenstance”; it was the result of a planned operation based on prior illegal activity involving a known drug dealer. Although the search warrant contained the wrong address, the officers involved in executing it at all times knew the intended location through close communication and coordination. DeRidder is a small town with a small police department. Unlike the New Orleans situation in Manzella, 392 So.2d at 406, where officers span multiple departments and areas of a large city, a search of the wrong premises is far less likely to occur.

Based on the foregoing, we find there are sufficient facts to consider the wrong address on the warrant to be a typographical error. We find the motion to suppress was properly denied based on this contention.