Maryland v. Garrison:   
U.S. Supreme Court, 1987. 

Statement of the Case:

      State prosecuted Garrison for violating the drug laws by having heroin when they searched his apartment by mistake.

Procedure: 

Facts:

      Officers obtained a search warrant for “the third floor apartment” of the D’s building.  The officers were pursuing another man, McWebb, who lived on the same floor.  It was unknown to the officers, at the time of getting the warrant, that there were two apartments on the floor.

      The officers found heroin, money and drug paraphanalea in Garrison’s apartment, but when they realized there were two apartments, they immediately stopped searching and left the apartment.

Issue:

      Whether issuance of a warrant that mistakenly only stated “third floor apartment,” when two existed, made the warrant invalid; and if so,

      Whether the execution of the mistaken warrant violated the D’s constitutional right to be secure in his home.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment for the State.

Holding:

      The issuance of a warrant that mistakenly only stated “third floor apartment,” when two existed, making it retroactively too broad, did not make the warrant invalid; and,

      The execution of the mistaken warrant did not violate the D’s constitutional right to be secure in his home, since it was reasonable to believe it was correct.

Reasoning:

Issue 1:

• Rule:  We must judge the constitutionality of the police conduct in light of the information available to the police at the time they acted.
• Rule:  Just as discovery of contraband cannot validate a warrant invalid when issued, it is equally clear that the discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does not retroactively invalidate a warrant.

Issue 2:

• Test for whether 4^th violated:  Whether the officers’ failure to realize the overbreadth of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable.
  • Yes.

Dissent:

• Particularity of Description Requirement:  Satisfied where the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.
• The search was definitely unreasonable because the officers could have looked at the mailbox to see how many people lived in the apartment.  They did not; they failed.

Additional Points:

• Probable cause can not be invalidated by a showing that it was mistaken. 
• Warrant is subject to 4^th amendment challenges if the officer supplying the basis for the warrant intentionally or recklessly furnishes false information.
• Franks v. Delaware:  It is permissible to challenge the truthfulness of an affidavit in court.
  • D must first substantially show that the officer acted by “making a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, AND it must be necessary to the finding of probable cause.” 
• Warrant must be issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.”
  • Attorney general ruled to NOT be able to constitutionally issue warrants.
  • Can not receive money for issuance, but not for non-issuance.
  • Do not need to be a trained lawyer (clerk is enough), but must be trained.