A search warrant is not general just because it does not describe with complete specificity what the officers might find because they are not expected to know all that they might find or where they will have to look. United States v. Rodriguez-Jimenez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37044 (E.D. Pa. April 30, 2009):<\/p>\n
Rather than authorizing unbridled “general exploratory rummaging in [Mr. Rodriguez-Jimenez’s] belongings,” … the warrants here did not vest the agents with unrestricted discretion to search for and seize whatever they wished. Instead, the attachments to the search warrants describe in detail the places to be searched and the types of documents and other items to be seized. To be sure, the law enforcement agents cannot (and are not expected to) know with precision the exact records or kinds of apparatus or instruments of crime that may be found — or the exact nook, cranny, drawer or shelf where the sought after evidence will be. Therefore, the Court is not obliged to be hyper-technical or overly demanding in its review of the degree of specificity of descriptions of the goods to be seized or the locations to be searched, as long as the descriptions are commensurate with the circumstances. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965); …. Here, the descriptions in the search warrants for the Rodriguez-Jimenez house and mini-market were sufficiently focused to meet the requisite standards for upholding their validity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A drive-off from a gas station without paying justified a stop by a National Park Service officer. United States v. Cheek, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. October 7, 2008, filed April 24, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading