Opinion
NO. 2015 KW 1201
09-08-2015
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PATRICK SNERLING
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 12-13-0257. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH AND DRAKE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The particularity requirement in the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment assures that "[b]y limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search . . . 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." State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La. 4/25/00), 759 So.2d 60, 62 (per curiam). As a general rule, mistakes in the use of municipal numbers do not invalidate a search warrant which otherwise describes the premises with sufficient particularity such that the officer with the warrant "can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended." State v. Alonzo, 95-2483 (La. 5/31/96), 675 So.2d 266, 267 (per curiam). Despite a mistake in municipal number, when the surveilling officer also executes the warrant, there is little possibility that an apartment not intended to be searched could be searched through mistake. State v. Korman, 379 So.2d 1061, 1063 (La. 1980). Although we recognize that the application for search warrant did not include a detailed description of the place to be searched, under the specific circumstances of this case where the affiant, while conducting surveillance, observed the confidential informant enter the unit where the search was conducted and the affiant executed the search warrant, we conclude there was no likelihood that the search warrant would have been executed on the wrong unit. Furthermore, the defense never established that the officer listed the wrong municipal address in the warrant. Moreover, the defense failed to establish bad faith on the part of the officer. See State v. Maxwell, 2009-1359 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/10/10), 38 So.3d 1086, 1092, writ denied, 2010-1284 (La. 9/17/10), 45 So.3d 1056. Therefore, we find the trial court erred as a matter of law. Accordingly, the writ application is granted, the trial court's ruling granting the motion to suppress is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
JEW
EGD
VGW
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT