Flashcards Studio

Under a search warrant issued by a Municipal Judge for the residence of Fernando and Lucia Reyes at 55 Sunset Lane, Davao City, the warrant describes the place to be searched as: “the first floor living room, including the interior of the built-in wooden cabinet therein,” to search for illegal drugs and to seize: (i) illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia; (ii) documents showing drug distribution; and (iii) any items reasonably connected to the foregoing. The warrant does not authorize search beyond the first floor. During execution, the team searches the living room and the cabinet and seizes methamphetamine and paraphernalia listed in the warrant. Inside the cabinet, they locate a locked jewelry box; inside the box is a ledger listing customers and shipments; they seize the ledger as “documents showing drug distribution.” The team then opens a locked safe inside the cabinet; inside the safe they find a USB drive containing digital copies of the ledger; the USB drive is not expressly listed in the warrant but is readily connected to the ledger; The safe’s contents are not enumerated in the warrant. Behind a false back panel in the cabinet, there is a hidden compartment containing a pistol; the pistol is seized. The warrant does not authorize search of the hidden compartment or seizure of firearms. (a) Identify the controlling rule on the extent of search and explain its application to the facts. (b) Are the ledger and USB drive admissible as seized items under the warrant? Why or why not? (c) Is the pistol admissible? If not, what are the possible remedies under the exclusionary framework?