United States v. Nolan

Summary

**Key Legal Topics:** Fourth Amendment – Particularity Requirement for Search Warrants; Motion to Suppress; Validity of Warrant at Execution vs. Issuance; Physical Attachment of Exhibits. **Holdings:** The Tenth Circuit held that a search warrant valid when issued does not become invalid under the particularity clause merely because an exhibit listing items to be seized was not physically attached to the warrant at the time of execution. The court focused on the warrant as issued, not executed, and found no Fourth Amendment violation where the officer who obtained the warrant participated in the search and briefed other officers on its scope, and the defendant conceded the warrant was particular when issued. The district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed.

Holdings

1. A warrant that is sufficiently particular when issued remains valid even if the exhibit listing items to be seized is not physically attached to the warrant at the time of execution, particularly when the officer who applied for the warrant is one of the executing officers and the defendant does not contend that the executing officers exceeded the scope of the items listed in the attachment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the search warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement because Exhibit B, which listed the items to be seized, was not physically attached to the warrant at the time of execution.

Disposition

affirmed