United States v. Moore , 119 F. App'x 438 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4323
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT SANDERS MOORE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-03-382)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2004         Decided:     December 29, 2004
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
    Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellant.     Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
    Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Sanders Moore entered a conditional guilty plea to
    possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), reserving the right to appeal the
    denial   of    his   motion   to   suppress   evidence   seized   following
    execution of a search warrant.        On appeal, Moore asserts that the
    search warrant was invalid and that evidence seized following the
    execution of the search warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree.
    Finding no merit to his claims, we affirm.
    Moore, a convicted felon, resided at 401A Meredith Avenue
    and sold drugs from this location.       In his application for a search
    warrant for this address and his supporting affidavit, the police
    detective inadvertently referred interchangeably to “401A Meredith
    Avenue” and “401A Mendota Avenue.”          The warrant itself listed “401
    A Mendota Avenue” as the address to be searched.                  Following
    execution of the search warrant, officers found the firearm that
    resulted in Moore’s conviction.
    Moore argues that the search warrant was invalid because
    it referred to Mendota Avenue instead of Meredith Avenue.           We find
    that this technical error did not invalidate the search warrant.
    The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall
    issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
    and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
    persons or things to be seized.”            U.S. Const. amend. IV.      The
    - 2 -
    requirement for particularity “ensures that the search will be
    carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the
    character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers
    intended to prohibit.”        Maryland v. Garrison, 
    480 U.S. 79
    , 84
    (1987). The particularity requirement is satisfied when an officer
    in possession of a search warrant describing a particular place to
    be searched can reasonably ascertain and identify the intended
    place to be searched.       United States v. Owens, 
    848 F.2d 462
    , 463
    (4th Cir. 1988) (citing Steele v. United States, 
    267 U.S. 498
    , 503
    (1925)).     Even if the description of the place to be searched is
    mistaken, there is no Fourth Amendment violation when the officers
    executing    the   search   reasonably   believe   that   the   warrant   is
    sufficiently particular and that they are searching the correct
    location.    Garrison, 
    480 U.S. at 84-89
    .      An erroneous description
    or a factual mistake in the search warrant will not necessarily
    invalidate the warrant and the subsequent search.         Owens, 
    848 F.2d at 463-64
    .
    In this case, it was clear to the officers that they were
    to search Moore’s residence and that he resided at 401A Meredith
    Avenue.    The application for the search warrant and the affidavit
    in support of the application inadvertently mentioned 401A Mendota
    Avenue, a similar sounding address; however, the majority of the
    references in these documents were to the correct address:            401A
    Meredith Avenue.     Furthermore, the warrant clearly concerned the
    - 3 -
    illegal activities of a particular individual, Moore, and the
    officers knew that he resided at 401A Meredith Avenue and had been
    investigating Moore’s drug dealing at that address.   We find that
    under the facts of this case, the technical error in the search
    warrant did not invalidate the warrant or the evidence seized when
    the warrant was executed.   We therefore conclude that the district
    court properly denied Moore’s suppression motion.
    For these reasons, we affirm Moore’s conviction.      We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4323

Citation Numbers: 119 F. App'x 438

Judges: Gregory, Luttig, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/29/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023