State v. Breedwell

In determining whether a warrant is adequately descriptive, the court must consider, “when otherwise adequately descriptive warrant contains a clerical error, that error does not render the warrant insufficient where the executing officer is aware of that error and uses personal knowledge to remedy the incorrect information in the warrant.” State v. Kauppi, 360 Or 465 (2016).  Furthermore, the “officer’s reliance on a magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable, and it is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for belief that the warrant was properly issued.”  US v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).

Defendant appealed a conviction of several drug crimes, arguing that the warrant to search his apartment was insufficiently particular because the warrant itself did not specify his name, omitted his apartment number, and, although the supporting affidavit accompanied the warrant, it did not incorporate or otherwise reference the affidavit.  Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress and argued the warrant’s lack of particularity violated the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The State argued the warrant was sufficiently particular because, although the warrant failed to incorporate the affidavit by reference, it was not required since the affidavit cured defects in the warrant when it accompanied the warrant during execution and the missing apartment number was a “mere clerical error” that was resolved by the officer’s personal knowledge of the correct apartment. In determining whether a warrant is adequately descriptive, the court must consider, “when otherwise adequately descriptive warrant contains a clerical error, that error does not render the warrant insufficient where the executing officer is aware of that error and uses personal knowledge to remedy the incorrect information in the warrant.” State v. Kauppi, 360 Or 465 (2016).  Furthermore, the “officer’s reliance on a magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable, and it is clear that in some circumstances the officer will have no reasonable grounds for belief that the warrant was properly issued.”  US v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).  The Court reasoned the trial court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress due to the supporting affidavit that accompanied the search warrant, which met the particularity requirement under the Oregon Constitution; although the warrant was facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.  Affirmed.