SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

could result in suppression of all, or maybe a part of, the
evidence seized, depending upon the flagrancy of the
violation. (United States v. Sears (9 th Cir. 2005) 411 F.3 rd
1124; severance and partial suppression held to be
sufficient sanction where the officer used the wrong
attachment describing the places to be searched and
property to be seized which was different in only a few,
minor ways.)
“General Warrants:” Warrants without sufficient
particularity (i.e., “general warrants”) are legally
insufficient and invalid. (Burrows v. Superior Court
(1974) 13 Cal.3 rd 238, 249-250.)
“The purpose of the ‘particularity’ requirement of
the Fourth Amendment is to avoid general and
exploratory searches by requiring a particular
description of the items to be seized. [Citation]”
(People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4 th 1229, 1296;
citing Collidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S
443, 467 [29 L.Ed.2 nd 564, 583]; and Stanford v.
Texas (1965) 379 U.S. 476, 485 [13 L.Ed.2 nd 432,
437].)
“Particularity” is the requirement that the
warrant must clearly state what is sought.
“Breadth” deals with the requirement that
the scope of the warrant be limited by the
probable cause on which the warrant is
based. (United States v. SDI Future
Health, Inc. (9 th Cir. 2009) 568 F.3 rd 684,
702; Millender v. County of Los Angeles
(9 th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3 rd 1016-1024.)
This “particularity” requirement serves two
important purposes. It:
• Limits the discretion of the officers
executing the warrant; and
• Informs the property owner or resident
of the proper scope of the search.
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
(United States v. Vesikuru (9 th Cir. 2002)
314 F.3 rd 1116, 1123-1124; (United States v.
272