California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Del Toro, B238494 (Cal. App. 2014):
Appellant contends on appeal that the officers searched for and seized items beyond the scope of the warrant, in particular, he objects to the seizure of documents found in a dresser drawer which referred to his attendance at the alcohol abuse and anger management programs. Appellant did not specifically address these items at the suppression motion, and thus it could be argued that he forfeited this objection. (People v. Tully, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 979-980.) However, because he raised the scope of the search in general, we will address his contention about these particular items.1
"Whether a warrant's description of property to be seized is sufficiently particular is a question of law subject to independent review by an appellate court. [Citation.] In considering whether a warrant is sufficiently particular, courts consider the purpose of the warrant, the nature of the items sought, and 'the total circumstances surrounding the case.' [Citation.] A warrant that permits a search broad in scope may be appropriate under some circumstances, and the warrant's language must be read in context and with common sense. [Citation.]" (People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 133-134.)
Because the papers showing appellant's attendance at anger management class were seized during the execution of a search warrant, appellant had the burden of proving the search was beyond the warrant's scope. (People v. Reyes (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1218, 1224.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.