Particularly Describing the Evidence to Be Seized under a Search Warrant

The Fourth Amendment states in part that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The reference to a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized is called the particularity requirement. As it pertains to the things to be seized, the Supreme Court’s most famous exposition of the requirement is in Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927), where it opined that the requirement “makes general searches . . . impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.  As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” In practice, officers regularly seek search warrants with catchall provisions. For example, in a drug case, an officer may seek authorization to seize drugs, paraphernalia, customer lists, and “any and all other evidence connected to drug activity.” Are catchall statements like these consistent with the particularity requirement? Generally, courts have held that they are. The rest of this post explains the reasoning courts have used to reach that result, explores the limits of the particularity requirement, and provides suggested practices for officers drafting search warrant applications. Purpose of the requirement. The purpose of the particularity requirement is to minimize officers’ intrusions upon citizens’ privacy: [T]hose searches deemed necessary should be as limited as possible. Here, the specific evil is the [...]