United States v. Williams - 592 F.3d 511 (4th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

When a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant, it is limited in scope by the terms of the warrant's authorization. But the terms of the warrant are not to be interpreted in a hypertechnical manner. Rather, they should be read with a commonsense and realistic approach, to avoid turning a search warrant into a constitutional straight jacket. 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. If, in those circumstances, documents not covered by the warrant are improperly seized, the government should promptly return the documents or the trial judge should suppress them. While the constitutional protection cannot demand perfection, any tolerance of imperfection does not give officers free rein to ransack and take what they like.

Facts:

Based on evidence seized from his home during execution of a search warrant, defendant Curtis Robert Williams was convicted of possession of an unregistered machine gun and an unregistered silencer, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871, and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2256(8)(A). Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the machine gun, the silencer, and a DVD containing the pornography, arguing that the search for and seizure of them exceeded the scope of the search warrant and that their seizure was not justified by the "plain-view" exception to the warrant requirement. The district court denied the motion, and defendant was now appealing the ruling. 

Issue:

1. Did the search for and seizure of the child pornography fall within the scope of the warrant? 
2. Was the seizure of the child pornography, and the gun and silencer justified under the plain view exception? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the images of child pornography contained on the DVD were sufficiently relevant to the crimes designated in the warrant to justify their seizure under the warrant, which authorized a search for instrumentalities of computer harassment under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.7:1. Alternatively, the court held that the seizure was justified by the plain-view exception. Seizure of the gun and silencer was also warranted under the plain-view exception. The items authorized in the search warrant could easily have been stored in the lockbox in which the gun and silencer were found, and their incriminating character became immediately apparent during the legitimate safety inspection.