MO: When there’s one black phone to be seized and searched, that’s all the SW needs to describe

Identifying the thing to be searched as a “black Samsung cell phone with a black case” was specific enough without including the phone number or serial number when there was only one in hand. State v. Bales, 2020 Mo. App. LEXIS 32 (Jan. 14, 2020):

Prosecutor argues that the scope of search warrant 1 was only one item: a black Samsung cell phone, and “[i]t is difficult to imagine how [Detective Fenton] could have been more descriptive without first seizing the phone from [Defendant] to check for serial numbers or a specific model number.” Defendant argues that the language “Black Samsung with black case” does not “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[,]” in that the warrant failed to include the phone number of the cell phone that law enforcement sought to search.

The description in search warrant 1 provided sufficient detail to allow officers to locate and identify the item of property to be searched — here, a black cell phone located in a particular residence — with reasonable effort and without a reasonable probability that other items of property would be mistakenly searched. See Hardy, 497 S.W.3d at 840.

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.