Is Collicott's application for a search warrant to seize "documents kept or maintained for the manufacture and/or distribution of methamphetamine" valid?

Collicott next claims that the language in the warrants directing the officers to seize "documents kept or maintained for the manufacture and/or distribution of methamphetamine" is impermissibly overbroad. We disagree. The warrants set an objective standard by which the officers could differentiate documents subject to seizure from those not subject to seizure. See United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963-65 (9th Cir.1986). In addition, "[t]he nature ... of the criminal activity [is] relevant in determining the particularity requirements of a warrant." United States v. Hillyard, 677 F.2d 1336, 1340 (9th Cir.1982). Since the crime is conspiracy to manufacture or distribute methamphetamine, and the warrants authorized the officers to search all papers for evidence of an intent to manufacture or distribute methamphetamine, the warrants are not overbroad.