THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

What Information Must be Included in the Application for a Warrant?

- A warrant may be sought for evidence of a crime; contraband,
fruits of a crime, or other items illegally possessed; property
designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a
crime; or a person to be arrested or a person who is
unlawfully restrained
- The Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant be based on
probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the placed to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
o Affidavit must include the information that provides a
basis for concluding that there is probable cause (may
be based on hearsay)
o Warrant will specify the time period for its execution
o The warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached
magistrate.
What Form Must the Warrant Take?
-

The warrant must detail with specificity that which is to be

searched or seized. See Andresen v. Maryland

Andresen v. Maryland (1976)

Issue:
-

Does the addition of a catchall phrase to a list of items to be

searched for and seized render an otherwise valid warrant a
general warrant in violating the Fourth Amendment?

Real estate attorney named Andresen came under

investigation for fraud.
Andresen had defrauded the purchaser of Lot 13T by claiming
the property was free of liens and did not require title
insurance, though Andresen knew that there were two
existing liens.
The investigators concluded that there was probably cause
and sought a warrant to obtain information.
The warrant listed specific documents and things to be
searched and seized; however, at the end of the warrant a
phrase read together with other fruits, instrumentalities and
evidence of crime at this (time) unknown.

Facts:
-

Holding:

No. General warrants allowing police to rifle through an

individuals property at their discretion looking for any type of
evidence of any crime are forbidden. The Fourth
Amendment requires that search warrants specifically list and
describe the items to be seized, and limits seizures to those
items. Andresen argued that the phrase together with other
fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this (time)
unknown turns the otherwise lawful search warrants into
general search warrants prohibited by the Fourth
Amendment. This argument requires reading the phrase in
isolation and out of context. The catchall phrase comes at the
end of a list of items all limited by the preceding part of the
sentence authorizing the search for documents related to the
sale of Lot 13T. The search for evidence of any other crime
was not sanctioned. Searching for documents to demonstrate
the occurrence of complex crimes presents unique privacy
concerns, but it is the duty of the governmental officials
involved to ensure that these searches are handled with as
little damage to legitimate privacy interests as possible. The
search warrants in this case were sufficiently specific and do
not violate the Fourth Amendment.