Search warrant for a pharmacy for all its records in a steroid prescribing case, where there was no link to the pharmacy and the prescribing doctors, was a general warrant for every piece of paper in the pharmacy with no way to limit the search to an offense. One defendant filed a summary judgment motion, and he lost. Signature Pharmarcy v. Soares, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57714 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2010):<\/p>\n
A lengthy laundry list of specific items unconnected–in any way–to an alleged crime is no better than a warrant for \u201call evidence\u201d of an alleged crime. Absent at least some nexus between the alleged crime and the items to be seized, an officer can simply \u201crummage and seize at will.\u201d Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 378 (1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Exploratory searches such as these have been roundly condemned since well before the founding of our nation. <\/p>\n
In sum, the search warrants in this case amount to general warrants that failed to comply with the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. On the day of the raids, \u201c[n]othing circumscribed [Wright\u2019s] activities … except [his] own good senses.\u201d U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 185 (1974) (internal citations and quotations omitted). No reasonable officer could possibly have believed that the warrants Wright possessed gave him the authority to simply arrive with U-Haul trucks, enter any office or suite in the buildings shared by Signature, and cart away virtually everything found therein. That is precisely, however, what appears to have occurred in this case.<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum total of Wright\u2019s argument concerning the seizures consists of the following:<\/p>\n
The search conducted in this case was made pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant supported by probable cause. … Furthermore, Agent Wright did not exceed the scope of the search warrant. All items seized were encompassed within the scope of the search warrant, evidence of criminal activity or properly seized pursuant to Florida\u2019s Contraband Act. 40 After the seizure of evidence took place, a judicial determination was timely made that probable cause support [sic] seizure of all items. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Docs. 129 at 21 and 221 at 9). Wright fails to provide a single example of an item of evidence that amounted to evidence of criminal activity. … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Probable cause at least existed for search warrant for a pharmacy\u2019s records of steroid sales such that the officer that prepared the warrant gets qualified immunity for issuance of the warrant in the first place.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading