M.D.Pa.: “Documentary evidence” of the Latin Kings as a DTO were properly seized

“Paraphernalia” in a search warrant does not make it overbroad. “This is consistent with other courts that have found that the use of ‘paraphernalia’ in a warrant is sufficiently particular.” The same with “documentary evidence,” including documents about the Latin Kings as a drug distribution group. The cell phones found were properly seized as well. United States v. Ramsey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172391 (M.D. Pa. December 5, 2013):

“A government agent has discovered evidence within the scope of the search allowed by the warrant if the agent’s search fits within the literal terms of the warrant.” United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550, 560 (3d Cir. 1994). “When a search requires review of a large collection of items, such as papers, it is certain that some innocuous documents will be examined, at least cursorily, in order to determine whether they are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized.” United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 234 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted). In executing a search warrant, officers are “required to interpret it, and they are not obliged to interpret it narrowly.” United States v. Stiver, 9 F.3d 298, 302 (3d Cir. 1993).

Police officers seized a large number of documents relating to the Latin Kings organization, which was known to the executing officers as being involved in the distribution of illegal drugs. This included Latin Kings bylaws, documents relating to the hierarchy of the group, photographs of members in Latin Kings attire, and correspondence between Latin Kings members, some of which was in Spanish.4 Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Shawn Wolfe, who was a party to the execution of the warrant, testified that he had ample training and knowledge regarding the Latin Kings organization and their involvement in marijuana distribution at the time the items were seized. (Transcript at 21:20-25, 22:1-7, 26:8-25.) Therefore, it was reasonable for officers to seize these records relating to an organization they knew to be involved in drug trafficking, as they are unassailably “documentary evidence” relating to marijuana distribution, and thus fit the literal terms of the warrant. The Court further finds there is no merit to the argument that these documents were outside the scope of the warrant merely because the warrant did not reference the Latin Kings. Officers are entitled to examine documents that may be within the scope of the warrant to see if they are in fact authorized by the warrant, and the Court finds no basis to require officers to turn a blind eye when encountering documents they understand to fall within the literal terms of the warrant and the scope of the items to be seized. See Stabile, 633 F.3d at 234; see also Menon, 24 F.3d at 562 (noting in a plain view doctrine context that the “apparency of criminality should be measured, at a minimum, by the collective knowledge of the officers on the scene”).