upholding warrants that contain a general authorization to seize “instru-mentalities of the commission of the crime of conducting an illegal gambling business” and noting that “the nature of the crime is such that these instrumentalities are reasonably subject to identification, and the in-premises conduct of such illegal activities would make greater particularity impossible”
How later courts described this case
- upholding warrants that contain a general authorization to seize “instru-mentalities of the commission of the crime of conducting an illegal gambling business” and noting that “the nature of the crime is such that these instrumentalities are reasonably subject to identification, and the in-premises conduct of such illegal activities would make greater particularity impossible”
- finding that the warrant did not adequately incorporate the accompanying affidavit of probable cause because it did not contain explicit words of incorporation
- holding that where an affidavit is incorporated by reference into the warrant, the affidavit can cure the warrant’s lack of particularity
- finding that warrant was not over-broad because it was limited to evidence relating to the manufacture of illegal drugs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the opinion of the majority, I write separately to emphasize that I believe that this is a close case, and one with which other courts may differ. As a result of the decision today, law enforcement officials in this Circuit may lawfully use the form warrant that was employed here, provided that the warrant makes clear that the search is limited to a particular crime or set of crimes. As a practical matter, however, law enforcement officials would be well advised to redraft the form warrant to avoid uncertainty as to its scope. Such a precaution would insure that convictions involving evidence obtained under the authority of the form warrant are not jeopardized in the event that a court in the future may view the warrant as does the dissenting opinion in this case.