search the site using Google™

 


WARRANT SPECIFICITY
Officer Mac Jones of the Dekalb County Police Department observed a controlled buy of methamphetamine from the residence of Fred "Speedy" Miller at 827 Clairmont Road. Mr. Miller's house is a single-family, single-story, blue structure with wood siding and a screened porch on the east side and a small, open stoop in the front.

Based on the controlled buy, Officer Jones made an affidavit and obtained a search warrant for the search of the house. The affidavit simply described the premises to be searched as follows: "That certain building, together with curtilage, located at 812 Clairmont Road in Dekalb County, Georgia, which is more particularly described as a single-family, single-story, residential dwelling with gray wood siding, a front screened porch, and an east-side screened porch." Based on this warrant, Officer Jones and several other officers conducted a search of Mr. Miller's home and found 200 grams of methamphetamine; they charged Mr. Miller with Trafficking in Methamphetamine.

Mr. Miller's attorney moved to suppress the evidence asserting that the warrant was ambiguous and failed to describe the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the description of the residence contained the wrong address, the wrong color of the siding, and an erroneous description of the front porch.

(A)Does the warrant sufficiently describe the house to pass constitutional muster?  What is the relevant standard to be applied?
Georgia seems to follow an objective standard that requires the warrant's description to be sufficient to enable a third-person to find the property based solely on the description contained in the warrant. See Walker v. State, 362 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (upholding warrant where executing officer was also procuring officer, but where testimony proved that "the description was adequate to lead any officer executing the warrant to appellant's residence).

(B)Can we consider Officer Jones subjective knowledge, apart from the warrant description, in evaluating the sufficiency of the description? After all, Officer Jones, having been there before, knew exactly what premises the search warrant was intended to cover. Georgia courts are apparently unwilling to consider Officer Jones' testimony. For other cases also considering the knowledge of the particular officer executing the warrant in evaluating the sufficiency of the description, see Jones v. State, 914 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) and People v. Graham, 633 N.Y.S.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995).

(C) In this case, does the wrong address invalidate the warrant? Consider Walker v. State, 363 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (upholding validity of warrant with incorrect street address because "any inaccuracies in the street address were made up for by the thoroughness of the rest of the description"). But here, the description of the building was not accurate.

Submitted by Jim Thornton
Emory Law School
 

Answer
(A) The description must be specific enough so that a police officer with no initial connection to the case would know where to search and what to seize.
(B) Generally No.  But cf. United States v. Burke, 784 F.2d 1090 (11th Cir. 1986) ("In evaluating the effect of a wrong address on the sufficiency of the warrant, this Court has also taken into account the knowledge of the officer executing the warrant, even where such knowledge was not reflected in the warrant or in the affidavit supporting the warrant.")
(C) Not if the remainder of the description is sufficiently specific so that an officer with no subjective knowledge of the case would be able to locate the correct house based on the warrant.
                                               Next Problem
 
© 2007 Marc L. Miller & Ronald F. Wright