Search and Seizure - Execution of Search Warrant

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (2005)

The police did not violate the plaintiff’s civil rights when they detained her for two to three hours during the execution of a search warrant at her house (they were looking for a dangerous gang member and evidence of a drive-by shooting).

Wilson v. Layne, 119 S.Ct. 1692 (1999)

Bringing third parties, including the media, along with the police when a search warrant is executed (not for the purpose of assisting the police in the execution of the warrant), violates the Fourth Amendment.

Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987)

Officers who were executing a search warrant and who were put on notice of a risk that they had entered a home that was unconnected with the illegal activity described in the warrant had an immediate duty to retreat.

Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct.1031 (2013)

Though Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), permits the police to detain people who are at the scene that is the target of a search warrant, in this case the police followed individuals who left the scene prior to the search and detained them about a mile away, without any information that they were subject to a Terry stop. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to an unlawful detention that necessitated the suppression of any evidence derived from the stop of the individuals.

United States v. Sedaghaty, 11-30342 (9th Cir. 2013)

The agents obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s computer for evidence of tax fraud. They searched the computer for evidence of his role in furnishing support to a terrorist organization, as well. The government claimed that the search warrant application specifically stated that the defendant was suspected of furnishing financial support to a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, the warrant only authorized a search for tax fraud evidence.

United States v. Brodie, 742 F.3d 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

The police were waiting outside a house that they planned to search pursuant to a search warrant. While awaiting their colleagues, the defendant was observed leaving the house (the police were not targeting that individual; the target was already in custody). The police approached the defendant and directed him to place his hands on the car (which he did). Shortly thereafter, he fled, discarding drugs and guns while on the run. The D.C. Circuit held (1) the defendant was detained; (2) there was no basis for the detention because, pursuant to Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013), the police may not detain an individual in connection with the execution of a search warrant unless the detention is at the time when, and at the place where, the search is being executed; (3) the detention was not attenuated from the defendant’s flight; and (4) the evidence that the police obtained was the fruit of the unlawful detention.

United States v. Lazar, 604 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2010)

The Sixth Circuit held that the warrant sufficiently directed the searching officers to seize certain patient records. The officers’ seizure of other records, however, was not permissible. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).

United States v. Payton, 573 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2009)

The police had a warrant that authorized the seizure of documents and records in connection with a drug investigation. The Ninth Circuit held that this did not justify searching a computer that was found in the location that was searched.

United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2007)

When executing a search warrant for drugs, the police may not seize receipts and other financial documents that are later analyzed and determined to be evidence of unexplained wealth. The documents were not “readily apparent” to be evidence of a crime, and thus did not fall within the plain view exception. The court also rejected the government’s claim that it could legitimately seize a map with certain locations circled, and a notebook/journal, that was later determined to be records of drug deals.

United States v. Hector, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2007)

The Ninth Circuit holds that the failure to leave a copy of the search warrant with the occupants of the location is not grounds to suppress the evidence. In part, the court relied on the decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which eliminated the exclusionary rule in cases in which the police violate the knock and announce rule.

United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006)

Though the FBI and the AUSA intended to get a search warrant that would have allowed the agents to search the defendant’s car and house (and there was, in fact, probable cause to search both the car and the house), they mistakenly submitted a search warrant that only identified a safe in the house and the car as the target of the search. Searching the entire house was therefore impermissible. Moreover, because the search warrant clearly only authorized the search of the car and the safe, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply.

In re Search Warrants Issued on April 26, 2004, 353 F.Supp.2d 584 (D.Md. 2004)

Even pre-indictment, the target of a search has a right to see the affidavit that was used to obtain a search warrant. Only if the government can present evidence of a compelling need to keep the affidavit under seal is it entitled to do so. The District Court relied on the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

United States v. Ritter, 416 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2005)

The police obtained a search warrant for a house, but learned after entering that it was a multi-dwelling structure. The proper course of conduct was for the police to return to the magistrate and seek a more particularized warrant. In deciding whether to suppress any evidence, the question is what the police observed prior to determining that the house was a multi-dwelling structure. See Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987).

Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2003)

The warrant particularly described the location to be searched and the people who were to be searched at that location. The attached, and incorporated affidavit, included additional people that the affiant believed should be searched. The affidavit could not broaden the scope of the narrowly drawn search warrant, and searching other people at the location was improper. (This is a civil rights case that was brought by other people at the premises who claimed that searching them violated their fourth amendment rights).

United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2002)

After the police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s house – and found only a small amount of drugs – they went back the following day. More drugs were found. The Sixth Circuit holds that the agents should have obtained a new search warrant. The second search was not a continuation of the first search. The court concluded, however, that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered.

United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999)

If a search warrant authorizes the search of a computer for drug sales, the police may not search through the hard drive for evidence of child pornography.

Ayeni v. Mottola, 35 F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 1994)

A government agent invited a news crew to accompany him when he executed a search warrant. This was a violation of the defendant’s rights and a Bivens action could be brought against the agent. 18 U.S.C. §3105 provides that agents may use the services of a private person to help in the execution of a search warrant. But the news crew was not helping in the execution of the search warrant. The subsequent decision in Wilson v. Layne, discussed above affirmed that it is unconstitutional to bring in a news crew, but held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Buonocore v. Harris, 65 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 1995)

The police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s house and invited an employee to come along to try to identify stolen property. The search warrant, however, only authorized a search for unregistered firearms. The conduct on the part of the police violated the defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and his §1983 action could proceed. This case includes a lengthy analysis of 18 U.S.C. §3105, which sets out who may execute a warrant.

United States v. Nelson, 36 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 1994)

The police learned that the defendant was arriving at an airport and would be carrying heroin. They obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s body. Before the search was over, the police had brought the defendant to a hospital where a rectal examination and search was conducted, following which an endoscopic procedure was used to extract a packet of heroin from the defendant’s stomach. The execution of the search warrant exceeded that which was authorized. A search of a defendant’s body does not include body cavity searches. The good faith doctrine, moreover, did not apply.

United States v. Sherrill, 27 F.3d 344 (8th Cir. 1994)

The police had a search warrant for the defendant’s residence. The police observed the defendant leave the house, then stopped him, handcuffed him and asked him to “help them execute the search.” This detention was not justified by Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), because the stop occurred at a location remote from the location of the search. However, suppression of evidence was not necessary, because there was probable cause to arrest the defendant.

United States v. Robbins, 21 F.3d 297 (8th Cir. 1994)

The police obtained a search warrant to seize certain documents from the defendant’s business. While executing the search warrant, the police seized the defendant’s wallet, but did not look into it until months later, when they discovered incriminating documents. This was an unlawful search. The search warrant permitted a search of the wallet’s contents during the initial search, but not its seizure, since the wallet itself was not listed as an item in the warrant which could be seized.

United States v. Foster, 100 F.3d 846 (10th Cir. 1996)

The police obtained a search warrant to search for marijuana and four specifically described weapons at the defendant’s house. When the searching party left, the federal agents seized thirty-five items from the house, including marijuana and guns, and local agents seized dozens of items, including tools, televisions, stereos, clothes, lawnmowers, knives, coins, jewelry and cameras. The officers conceded during the suppression hearing that their policy was to take anything of value. The Tenth Circuit holds that this total disregard for the limitations of the warrant necessitated suppressing all evidence seized, including the drugs and guns.

United States v. Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194 (10th Cir. 1988)

During the course of a search conducted pursuant to a federal search warrant, a state deputy sheriff seized numerous stolen items which had no relationship whatsoever to the object of the search. The Court holds that everything which was seized would be suppressed. The reason for the exclusion of all evidence was the executing officers’ “flagrant disregard” for the terms of the warrant.