Misdescription in warrant did not violate Fourth Amendment

Technically inaccurate warrant was not constitutionally deficient where the affiant was also one of the executing officers and they clearly found the right place. United States v. Johnson, 558 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Tenn. 2008):

The test for determining whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity “is not whether the description is technically accurate in every detail,” Prout, 526 F.2d at 387-88, but rather whether the description is sufficient “to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premises might be mistakenly searched.” United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d 1490, 1496 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S. Ct. 3242, 106 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1989) (quoting United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371 (8th Cir.1979)); and United States v. Pelayo-Landero, 285 F.3d 491, 495 -496 (6th Cir. 2002) quoting United States v. Dorrough, 927 F.2d 498, 500 (10th Cir.1991) (that the “requisite specificity of the description … depends heavily on the facts of each case”).

Defendant’s sticking closed fist into a police car which caused officer to grab his arm justified opening his hand for officer safety. United States v. Solomon, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86607 (W.D. Pa. August 29, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.