VI. Seizure Exceeded the Authorized Scope of Warrant
It has long been established that a search made pursuant to a warrant may not go beyond the property described in the warrant and must be reasonably conducted to turn up the materials described. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927). However, if during the search the police legitimately come upon contraband other than that described in the warrant, they may properly seize it. See Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947); Commonwealth v. Colilni, 398 A.2d 1044 (PaSuper. 1979).
The search warrant authorizes seizure of the items enumerated in section 3 of the warrant. To summarize, the warrant authorizes seizure of the following five categories of items only: (1) actual computers and hardware, computer software and all information stored on computers or used to access information through computers; (2) blood, fiber, trace or other physical evidence; (3) knives or cutting instruments; (4) credit/debit cards, cash, financial data and receipts; and (5) all documents relating to the victim and the defendant’s residence. See Affidavit Exhibit I at section 3.
Despite the clear categories authorized above, the inventory return shows that, inter alia, luggage, firearms, ammunition, clothing, cameras, videotapes, camcorders, battery packs, and insulation were seized. Inventory Exhibit 1. These items are not encompassed by the warrant nor has their seizure been authorized. Further, these items are not per se illegal or contraband.
Even though the seizure of these items was not authorized in the warrant, the Commonwealth may rely on the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement if certain factors are met. Under the Fourth Amendment, police may seize an item without a warrant if it is plain view, its incriminatory character is immediately apparent, and the officer is lawfully in the place where the seizure occurs and has lawful right of access to that object. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). In the instant case, the incriminatory character of luggage, firearms, ammunition, clothing, cameras, videotapes, camcorders, battery packs, and insulation is not immediately apparent.
Therefore, the Commonwealth cannot even avail itself of an exception to the warrant requirement to justify the seizure of these items.
It has long been established that a search made pursuant to a warrant may not go beyond the property described in the warrant and must be reasonably conducted to turn up the materials described. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927). However, if during the search the police legitimately come upon contraband other than that described in the warrant, they may properly seize it. See Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947); Commonwealth v. Colilni, 398 A.2d 1044 (PaSuper. 1979).
The search warrant authorizes seizure of the items enumerated in section 3 of the warrant. To summarize, the warrant authorizes seizure of the following five categories of items only: (1) actual computers and hardware, computer software and all information stored on computers or used to access information through computers; (2) blood, fiber, trace or other physical evidence; (3) knives or cutting instruments; (4) credit/debit cards, cash, financial data and receipts; and (5) all documents relating to the victim and the defendant’s residence. See Affidavit Exhibit I at section 3.
Despite the clear categories authorized above, the inventory return shows that, inter alia, luggage, firearms, ammunition, clothing, cameras, videotapes, camcorders, battery packs, and insulation were seized. Inventory Exhibit 1. These items are not encompassed by the warrant nor has their seizure been authorized. Further, these items are not per se illegal or contraband.
Even though the seizure of these items was not authorized in the warrant, the Commonwealth may rely on the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement if certain factors are met. Under the Fourth Amendment, police may seize an item without a warrant if it is plain view, its incriminatory character is immediately apparent, and the officer is lawfully in the place where the seizure occurs and has lawful right of access to that object. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). In the instant case, the incriminatory character of luggage, firearms, ammunition, clothing, cameras, videotapes, camcorders, battery packs, and insulation is not immediately apparent.
Therefore, the Commonwealth cannot even avail itself of an exception to the warrant requirement to justify the seizure of these items.
