UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT SANDERS MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-382)
Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Sanders Moore entered a conditional guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000), reserving the right to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized following
execution of a search warrant. On appeal, Moore asserts that the
search warrant was invalid and that evidence seized following the
execution of the search warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree.
Finding no merit to his claims, we affirm.
Moore, a convicted felon, resided at 401A Meredith Avenue
and sold drugs from this location. In his application for a search
warrant for this address and his supporting affidavit, the police
detective inadvertently referred interchangeably to “401A Meredith
Avenue” and “401A Mendota Avenue.” The warrant itself listed “401
A Mendota Avenue” as the address to be searched. Following
execution of the search warrant, officers found the firearm that
resulted in Moore’s conviction.
Moore argues that the search warrant was invalid because
it referred to Mendota Avenue instead of Meredith Avenue. We find
that this technical error did not invalidate the search warrant.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The
- 2 -
requirement for particularity “ensures that the search will be
carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the
character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers
intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84
(1987). The particularity requirement is satisfied when an officer
in possession of a search warrant describing a particular place to
be searched can reasonably ascertain and identify the intended
place to be searched. United States v. Owens, 848 F.2d 462, 463
(4th Cir. 1988) (citing Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503
(1925)). Even if the description of the place to be searched is
mistaken, there is no Fourth Amendment violation when the officers
executing the search reasonably believe that the warrant is
sufficiently particular and that they are searching the correct
location. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 84-89. An erroneous description
or a factual mistake in the search warrant will not necessarily
invalidate the warrant and the subsequent search. Owens, 848 F.2d
at 463-64.
In this case, it was clear to the officers that they were
to search Moore’s residence and that he resided at 401A Meredith
Avenue. The application for the search warrant and the affidavit
in support of the application inadvertently mentioned 401A Mendota
Avenue, a similar sounding address; however, the majority of the
references in these documents were to the correct address: 401A
Meredith Avenue. Furthermore, the warrant clearly concerned the
- 3 -
illegal activities of a particular individual, Moore, and the
officers knew that he resided at 401A Meredith Avenue and had been
investigating Moore’s drug dealing at that address. We find that
under the facts of this case, the technical error in the search
warrant did not invalidate the warrant or the evidence seized when
the warrant was executed. We therefore conclude that the district
court properly denied Moore’s suppression motion.
For these reasons, we affirm Moore’s conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -