NE: SW for “any and all firearms” from def’s place in a murder investigation wasn’t constitutionally imparticular

The search warrant here sought “any and all firearms” from defendant’s place. The police didn’t know whether a rifle or a handgun did the killing, but it was possible it was a rifle stuffed in his pants leg. The search warrant was not constitutionally imparticular and didn’t authorize a general search. State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 199 (Nov. 17, 2017):

Here, we reject Baker’s argument that the provision of the search warrant authorizing police to search for “[a]ny and all” firearms was insufficiently particular. Importantly, Baker does not argue that probable cause was lacking for police to search for any and all firearms. Thus, we need not address whether there was probable cause to authorize a search for any and all firearms, including handguns and shotguns, where the crime scene evidence (the shell casings found and the shot-up Crown Victoria) and the security camera footage indicated that the gun used was likely a rifle. Rather, Baker argues that the warrant was lacking in particularity.

The search warrant was sufficiently particular because it told police with reasonable clarity which items to search for and seize. It did not authorize a “‘fishing expedition[]‘” through Baker’s residence. Even without specifying a particular caliber of firearm, the description of “[a]ny and all” firearms, followed by the exemplary list of types of firearms, was “‘sufficiently definite to enable the searching officers to identify the property authorized to be seized.’” Police were not given open-ended discretion as to which items they could search for and seize.

This entry was posted in Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.