Particularity Requirement

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

IV. Particularity requirement

A. Sources that require particularity

1. Fourth Amendment

In Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 195 (1927), the Supreme Court held that general warrants are prohibited: "General searches have long been deemed to violate fundamental rights. It is plain that the [Fourth Amendment] forbids them." See also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624-25 (1886). A search warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. An arrest warrant must describe with particularity the person to be arrested.

A particularity failure renders the warrant invalid. In Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984), the Supreme Court stated: "[A] search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional." Id. at 988 n.5 (citations omitted).

In Groh, 540 U.S. at 558-59, the affidavit and warrant application satisfied probable cause and the particularity requirement, but the warrant itself was unconstitutional because it failed to state at all, much less with particularity, the items to be seized, and the warrant failed to incorporate by reference either the affidavit or the application, neither of which accompanied the warrant. That failure made it an unconstitutional warrantless search.

2. Maryland

Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-203(a)(4)(ii), provides that a search warrant must name or describe, with reasonable particularity, the person, building, apartment, premises, place or thing to be searched. In Garcia-Perlera v. State, 197 Md. App. 534, 555-56 (2011), the Court of Special Appeals held that a warrant authorizing the seizure of "costume jewelry" was sufficiently particular under the circumstances of that case.

B. Particularity as to place to be searched

In Braxton v. State, 123 Md. App. 599, 630 (1998), the Court of Special Appeals held that a search warrant was invalid because the affidavit (1) failed to specifically identify the address searched as the defendant's residence; and (2) failed to indicate how police knew that the defendant resided at that address. Absolute certainty is not required, but the description must be particular enough that an officer could, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the intended location. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925).

In Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 88 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the warrant was valid even though the description of the place...