Delivery of Meth

| Aug 31, 2010 | Criminal Defense |

In State v. Powell, during Appellee’s trial for possession with intent to deliver meth, the court suppressed the drugs because the seizure of two safes, one of which contained the drugs, violated his Fourth Amendment rights because these safes were not “particularly described” in the search warrant as items to be seized.  There is no dispute that while executing the search warrant, the police could have searched the two safes.  However, the police seized the safes and took them to the police station, where they searched them the next day and found the methamphetamines.

The appellate court held that the massive remedy of exclusion of the meth is not required in this case.  The meth was not obtained because the police may have unlawfully seized the safes but because of a subsequent search pursuant to a lawful warrant.  The police could have seized the safes in the home because the safe defendant bought with a forged check was property described in the affidavit and the police could have reasonably believed that one of the safes was the one purchased with a forged check.  Any remedy that Appellee might have is a civil suit for damages for his alleged unlawfully seized safes.