Flashcards Studio

A search warrant is issued by a Municipal Judge for the residence of Loria Santos at 88 Aurora Street, Pasay City, describing the place to be searched as: “the master bedroom on the second floor, including the walk-in closet therein, and the locked 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 related to the foregoing. The warrant authorizes search of the master bedroom, the walk-in closet, and the locked cabinet, and it does not authorize any search beyond those areas. During execution, the team searches the master bedroom and the walk-in closet and seizes methamphetamine and paraphernalia listed in the warrant. In the closet, they locate a ledger listing customers and shipments and seize it as “documents showing drug distribution.” Inside a small locked jewelry box within the closet, they find a USB drive containing digital copies of the transaction records; the USB drive is not expressly listed in the warrant but is readily connected to the ledger. Behind a shelf in the closet, a trapdoor leads to an attic; in the attic the team finds a pistol and seizes it. The warrant did not authorize search of the attic 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?