493 F. App'x 265
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Wright brothers’ Pennsylvania apartments searched with January 2009 warrants by DEA based on Agent Taylor’s probable-cause affidavit.
- Warrants were prepared with “SEE ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE” and “SEE ATTACHMENT A,” but Attachment A described the properties, not items to be seized.
- The affidavits were removed, impounded, and sealed before execution, so the warrants lacked any items-to-be-seized description on their face.
- District Court suppressed the evidence, ruling the warrants facially invalid and applying per se exclusion for clerical error.
- Government appealed, arguing Groh-based distinctions allowed incorporation by reference; the court vacated and remanded for proper exclusionary-rule analysis.
- Court remanded to develop factual findings on police culpability and apply the exclusionary rule balancing framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrants lacked particularity on their face | Wright argues warrants failed to describe items to be seized | United States contends incorporation by reference suffices | Warrants facially invalid; remanded for rule analysis on suppression. |
| Can a sealed affidavit satisfy particularity by reference | Bartholomew/Barlowe-like view supports incorporation | Groh bars reliance on sealed affidavits to cure warrant deficiency | Sealed affidavits cannot satisfy particularity; improper to save warrant. |
| Should exclusion attach automatically due to facial invalidity or after culpability analysis | Exclusion should apply given facial invalidity | Exclusion may be avoided if good-faith or non-deliberate error | Remand for full exclusionary-rule analysis balancing police culpability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (warrant must describe items to be seized; seal cannot save deficiency)
- Bartholomew v. Pennsylvania, 221 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2000) (incorporated affidavit must accompany warrant; sealed affidavit cannot supply particularity)
- United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (outline of good faith vs. defective warrants in incorporation context)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (unreasonable searches without warrant absent exigent circumstances)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule serves deterrence; require weighing costs and benefits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (ker cân balance of deterrence and truth-seeking in applying exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct triggers deterrence; negligence may not)