United States v. Ellis - 971 F.2d 701 (11th Cir. 1992)

Rule:

When evaluating a warrant, it is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. A warrant's description of the place to be searched is not required to meet technical requirements or have the specificity sought by conveyancers. The warrant need only describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity to direct the searcher, to confine his examination to the place described, and to advise those being searched of his authority.

Facts:

The search warrant against defendant did not list his name or the object of the search, and gave an incorrect address. The officer who obtained the warrant knew the location of defendant's mobile home, but did not take part in the search until other officers stopped by the address in the warrant and were then directed to another mobile home. The district court denied defendant's motion to suppress the drugs seized under the warrant, and he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute dilaudid and possession with intent to distribute dilaudid. On appeal, defendant claimed that the warrant lacked the specificity required by U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Issue:

Did the search warrant lack the specificity required by U.S. Const. amend. IV? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

In reversing the judgment, the court agreed that the warrant lacked sufficient particularity. Because the officers who initiated the search had no prior knowledge of defendant, and did not contact the officer who obtained the warrant to confirm his address before going to the second mobile home, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable. Given the lack of other incriminating evidence, the court found that the admission of the drugs was not harmless error.