S.D.Ala.: Failure to include one attachment when serving warrant not a Fourth Amendment violation

Where all three attachments to the application for a search warrant were presented to the USMJ, the fact one was not attached to the warrant when it was served is not a Fourth Amendment violation under Groh. In re Premises Located at 200 N. Main St. Atmore, Alabama, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97239 (S.D. Ala. August 19, 2010):

In this case, the Government has produced uncontroverted evidence that the search warrant application and the warrant that were presented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge included “attachment A,” which described the items to be seized. In addition, both the search warrant application and the warrant expressly referenced and incorporated “attachment A.” Accordingly, there is no question about whether the three warrants in issue were validly issued. Instead, the question is whether the failure to include “attachment A” with three of the warrants served on the movants amounted to a constitutional violation. Based upon the above-referenced cases, the undersigned finds that the failure to include “attachment A” does not establish a Fourth Amendment violation because “attachment A” was incorporated into the application and the warrant and specified the items to be seized.