Andresen v. Maryland:   
U.S. Supreme Court, 1976. 

Statement of the Case:

      Fraudulent real estate lawyer is suing the State for violating his 4^th Amendment rights when the warrant specifically stated what documents could be taken, although the final clause was extremely vague, and seemed all encompassing.

Procedure:

      Court of appeals found that the vague phrase to be specific enough, considered in the totality of the document.

Facts:

      Andresen, D, was real estate attorney who was involved in fraudulent sale of property, namely Lot 13T. The officers had probable cause and obtained a warrant to search defendant's law office and his company's office. The officers seized documents from the defendant's offices and these documents were used to convict the defendant. The defendant appealed under the 4th Amendment.

      The warrant specifically stated what documents could be taken, although the final clause was extremely vague, and seemed all encompassing.

Issue:

      Whether the D’s 4^th amendment rights were violated when warrant specifically stated what documents could be taken, although the final clause was extremely vague, and seemed all encompassing.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment affirmed for State.

Holding:

      The D’s 4^th amendment rights were NOT violated when the warrant specifically stated what documents could be taken, although the final clause was extremely vague, and seemed all encompassing.

Reasoning:

• The warrant had an exhaustive list of things that could be seized, but a vague phrase, “together with known fruits of crime at this time unknown.”
• This is just unclear but obviously refers to only the Lot 13 case when read in the totality of the document.
• Rule:  General warrants are prohibited by the 4^th Am.
• Rule:  “Makes general searches impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.  Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.

Dissent:

• “Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.”
• The overwhelming quantity of seized material was either suppressed or returned to the ?. This shows an abusive search.

Additional Points: 

• Groh v. Ramirez:
  • Warrant had no specifics on it, but the application to the magistrate was very specific.
  • Supreme court held it was impermissible based on the 4^th amendment, but COULD have been permissible if it incorporated the affidavit by reference.