Ritter v. State, 2011 Ark. 427

Ritter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one firearm felony; sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus 180 months for the firearm.
Ritter moved to suppress evidence found at his residence arguing the search warrant failed to identify the premises with particularity under Rule 13.2(b)(iii).
Affidavit described the Rideout residence (34009 Hwy 28 West) as the search target, not Ritter’s residence (33601 Hwy 28 West).
Witnesses connected Ritter to the crime scene; officers obtained a warrant based on an affidavit alleging Ritter’s possession of a gun and prior behavior suggesting criminal activity.
The district judge denied suppression; ruling reviewed de novo on appeal; evidence seized at Ritter’s residence stood.
Court affirmed denial of suppression, holding the warrant’s description was sufficiently particular and misidentification did not invalidate the search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrant sufficiently described the premises with particularity	Ritter argues the address/name were incorrect; premises not identified with particularity	State contends description was sufficient under totality of circumstances and officer good faith	Affirmed; description adequate under standards; warrant not automatically invalid due to incorrect address

Beshears v. State, 320 Ark. 573, 898 S.W.2d 49 (1995) (test for sufficiency of place description; avoid search risk; common-sense standard)
Costner v. State, 318 Ark. 806, 887 S.W.2d 533 (1994) (location description must allow locating premises with reasonable effort)
Gitcho, United States v., 601 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1979) (address wrong but intended premises known and under surveillance; not automatic invalidation)
Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003) (avoid hypercritical review; not overly technical)
Wagner v. State, 2010 Ark. 389, 368 S.W.3d 914 (2010) (de novo review of suppression ruling; preponderance standard)