UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EDWARD MICKAEL RYTMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a search warrant's description of an item, despite minor inaccuracies, met the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.
The defendant was convicted of retaining a stolen government air-conditioner compressor. The search warrant described the compressor with minor serial…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Rytman was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, having been found guilty of knowingly retaining an air-conditioner compressor stolen from the United States Government.
The sole issue on appeal is whether or not the search warrant described the item with the particularity necessary to withstand the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.
The item was described in the search warrant as a Bendix-Westinghouse motor compressor CH490TA-9-2085, Serial #AA00-2002, located in an air conditioning unit at appellant’s home. In actuality the stolen part was a Bendix- Westinghouse motor compressor CH490 TA-9-A2085, Serial #A90-2002.
An error in a description is not automatically fatal to the validity of a search warrant. United States v. Melancon, 462 F. 2d 82, 94 (5th Cir., 1972); United States v. DePugh, 452 F. 2d 915 (10th Cir., 1971).
In the present case there was only one air conditioning unit located at the described premises, and, further, only one Bendix compressor installed in said unit. The warrant cannot be described as sanctioning a general exploratory search. Nor does the inclusion of a slightly erroneous numerical series give rise to a discretionary determination on the part of the executing officer. We are satisfied that the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularity has been met.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Udell Shirley Stevens v. State, 383 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
-
State v. Tamer, 449 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
-
United States v. Harvey, 540 F.2d 1345 (8th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Melancon, 462 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. DePUGH, 452 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1971)