# United States of America, in 81-2838 v. Howard U. Johnson, in 81-2839

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 30, 1982 · 690 F.2d 60

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469775

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellant in 81-2838, v. Howard U. JOHNSON, Appellant in 81-2839
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 30, 1982
- **Citations:** 690 F.2d 60; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Adams
- **Judges:** Adams, Weis, Bloch
- **Cited by:** 85 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469775

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469775. Public record. Not legal advice.