AR: While wrong address was on SW, chance of searching wrong place was slight

The address on the search warrant was wrong, but the right one was searched. [Not the question.] The officer getting the search warrant knew the correct place to be searched because he’d been there before, and it was unlikely the wrong place would be searched. In addition, that it was the right place was confirmed by an occupant who told the officer where to find what they were looking for. Ritter v. State, 2011 Ark. 427, 385 S.W.3d 740 (2011)*:

In the present case, the warrant contained an incorrect address, thus increasing the likelihood of searching the wrong residence. But this likelihood was mitigated by the fact that the officers executing the warrant personally knew which premises were to be searched and the fact that the intended location was under surveillance while Lt. Vanravensway secured the warrant. In addition, the affidavit included facts indicating that it was the Ritter residence, not the Rideout residence, that was intended to be searched. After listing numerous facts about Ritter and referring to the Ritter residence, Lt. Vanravensway noted that Special Agent Mendenhal had learned from Ms. Ritter that Ritter had left their residence with a gun and returned approximately thirty minutes later, still carrying the gun. The affidavit also stated that Ms. Ritter told Special Agent Mendenhal that she had placed the gun under a mattress in the Ritter residence. Moreover, Chief Deputy Staggs testified that, while waiting to begin the search, he walked past Ms. Ritter and asked her how she was doing, and Ms. Ritter told him, “The gun you’re looking for is under the mattress. There’s [a] pillow case with some shotgun shells under there as well.” Ms. Ritter’s statement, made shortly before the warrant was executed at the Ritter residence, further mitigated the likelihood that the officers were at the wrong residence. Finally, the premises that were intended to be searched were, in fact, searched. We hold that the circuit court did not err in denying Ritter’s motion to suppress.

The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that defendant consented to search of his person. Webb v. State, 2011 Ark. 430, 385 S.W.3d 152 (2011).*