MCCLOUD V. COM.
CRIMINAL: SEARCH WARRANTS
2006-CA-002498
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: TAYLOR PRESIDING; LAMBERT, WINE CONCUR
COUNTY: GRAYSON
Date: 10/11/2007
Search warrant did not violate the particularity requirement of Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution or the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A search warrant containing an incorrect address for the premises to be searched may still be constitutionally valid if the warrant contains a description of the premises to be searched with such particularity that the officer executing the warrant is able to identify the place to be searched with reasonable effort. In the case sub judice, the search warrant contained a detailed description of the premises to be searched. Although the warrant contained the wrong address, the warrant clearly recited that the premises to be searched was “the first trailer on the right.” As there only existed two trailers at the end of the driveway, one on the left and one on the right, an officer exercising reasonable effort could easily ascertain the proper trailer to be searched. Additionally, Deputy Henderson knew the trailer on the right was appellant’s residence and had served the Hardin County arrest warrant upon McCloud at the trailer earlier that day. When Deputy Henderson returned to execute the search warrant, he was obviously able to identify the correct premises to be searched under the search warrant.
Next, CA found Deputy Blanton properly proceeded to the rear door of McCloud’s trailer in execution of the arrest warrant. a valid arrest warrant also authorizes the police to enter that part of the curtilage of a private residence necessary to secure the rear door of the residence. Finally, the affidavit submitted by Deputy Blanton was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant.
Digested by Scott C. Byrd
Olgin and Byrd
