N.D.Ohio: A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases

A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases. United States v. Grant, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50390 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2020):

In sum, in our Circuit, drug cases appear to be somewhat sui generis when it comes to the particularity requirement. See United States v. Lengen, 245 Fed.Appx. 426, 433 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[b]ecause of the very nature of contraband drugs and any drug-trafficking operation, a warrant cannot be expected to identify exactly the weights or quantities of controlled substances and paraphernalia that might be found in a private dwelling.”); United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1026 (6th Cir.1991) (“If the purpose of the warrant is to seize illicit property or contraband, however, a general reference is permissible.”).

Conclusion

I conclude, on the basis of prevailing law, as the court did in Hollis, that, “[v]iewed in context, therefore, the use of a seemingly generic list does not fall short of the Fourth Amendment’s demand for particularity.” 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58110, 2017 WL 1382921, at *6 (citing United States v. Willoughby, 742 F.3d 229, 233 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding that “broad list of items” was sufficiently particular where “a global modifier” limited the scope of the search “to a list of offenses for which there was probable cause to think [the defendant] had committed”)).

I close with the observation that none of this was necessary.

Given this authority and approach, I conclude that, despite its nearly limitless expansiveness and scope, the warrant adequately denominated “the things to be seized.”