CA10: Construing SW as a whole, it did not authorize a “general search”

Construing the warrant as a whole, it did not authorize a “general search,” and the good faith exception applied to its execution. United States v. De La Torre, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22269 (10th Cir. November 1, 2013):

Although the warrant incorporated the affidavit’s boilerplate language (allowing seizure of evidence related to any conceivable drug crime), the warrant’s preamble, setting forth probable cause, authorized the seizure of evidence of only one crime–”Possession and Consumption of … Methamphetamine.” 1 R. 35. One can easily see how a reasonable officer could conclude that the authorized search, though purporting to extend to an exhaustive array of items, was limited to the only offense described. Id. So understood, the breadth of the items listed would not necessarily lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the warrant authorized an impermissible “general” search.

B. Circumstances of the Search

The circumstances surrounding the second search, including the investigator’s participation in obtaining and executing the warrant, also suggest good faith. Good faith is indicated where “the officers executing the warrant were involved in the investigation throughout, and one of them wrote the affidavit to support the application.” Otero, 563 F.3d at 1135 (citing Riccardi, 405 F.3d at 864).

Here, the investigator was present for the original discovery and authored the affidavit stating probable cause that Mr. De La Torre continued in unlawful possession of methamphetamine. 1 R. 32-33. The investigator returned to the residence an hour later to execute the search. Although the warrant omitted a reference to the discovery of the original bag with methamphetamine residue, the affidavit did describe that discovery. We conclude that reasonable officers in this situation would have reason to believe the warrant was valid, consider themselves authorized to search only for evidence of the crime for which they had probable cause, and would seize only those items that they believed the warrant and plain-view doctrine authorized.