W.D.N.C.: Mistaken attachment to SW had wrong address, but officer went to right place; no failure of particularity under Fourth Amendment

The officer preparing the search warrant was using a computer template for their “Attachment 2”s to their search warrants that include a description of the place to be searched. Here, the officer used the template, but accidentally picked up the wrong one and attached it to the search warrant. The officer preparing the search warrant was the one who investigated, and he went to the defendant’s house, not the one named in the search warrant. Nevertheless, the search was valid because there was no reckless or knowing mistake, and the good faith exception would have saved it anyway. Also, the affidavit for the search warrant did not support a search warrant for the place in Attachment 2, but it did for defendant’s house. There was no particularity failure. United States v. Peoples, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75295 (W.D. N.C. June 9, 2011):

Secondly, there was no reasonable probability of a mistake being made in locating the actual premises that were to be searched. The officer requesting the search warrant and the officer executing the search warrant were the same person: Det. Trantham. Trantham had been involved in the surveillance of the dwelling house located at 61 East Marshall Street and knew that was the premises he wanted to search. Courts recognize this is a factor in supporting the validity of the search warrant. May, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28588, 2009 WL 928386, at *10. Trantham testified he never intended to search any dwelling house except the dwelling house located at 61 East Marshall Street. The mistake in the description on Attachment 2 had no affect upon the search of the correct dwelling house. Trantham went unerringly to 61 East Marshall Street. There was no probability of a search taking place at either of the addresses described in Attachment 2. In short, the officer in possession of the Search Warrant could reasonably ascertain and identify the intended place to be searched in spite of the facial defect in Attachment 2. See Owens, 848 F.2d at 463 (holding that facially deficient search warrant assigning the wrong apartment number to be searched did not invalidate the warrant and violate the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement); Brooks, 294 F. Appx at 73 (“Even if the description of the place to be searched is mistaken, there is not [sic] Fourth Amendment violation when the officers executing the search reasonable [sic] believe that the warrant is sufficiently particular and that they are searching the correct location.”); Watts, 352 F. Appx at 785 (“Moreover, even where a warrant contains a technical inaccuracy, a sufficient description of the premises, especially where the executing officer had knowledge of the particular place to be searched, will meet the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.”).