An add on to an already particular list \u201cand any other items of evidentiary value\u201d does not make a search warrant general. United States v. Ballard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1334 (E.D. Pa. January 5, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has addressed this very issue. In Andresen<\/a>, the Court held that a general tail at the end of a list of enumerated items to be seized does not create an impermissible general warrant. 427 U.S. at 481. The warrant in Andresen<\/a> contained a long list of items related to a fraudulent real estate scheme, followed by the phrase, \u201ctogether with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crimes at this [time] unknown.\u201d Id. at 479. The Court observed that the catch-all phrase at the tail end of the list was \u201cnot a separate sentence\u201d but rather appeared at the end of a list of specific items. Id. The Court concluded that reference to \u201ccrime\u201d in the catch-all phrase was meant to be interpreted in the context of the preceding specified list, meaning that it limited the search to other evidence of the real estate scheme described in the warrant. Id. The Court held that the warrant was not unconstitutionally general. Id.<\/p>\n
The Third Circuit has similarly found that a catch-all phrase following a list of specific items to be seized does not render a warrant impermissibly broad. In United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc.<\/a>, the Court analyzed a warrant authorizing the search of categories of \u201cspecifically delineated records and seizure of other documents and items considered [] fruits, instrumentalities and\/or evidence of criminal activity.\u201d 879 F.2d 1087, 1093 (3d Cir. 1989). The Court held that \u201cbecause the items to be seized were described with sufficient particularity, the general tail, which is not read in isolation, does not render the warrant invalid.\u201d Id. at 1106.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading