Flashcards Studio

A municipal judge issues a warrant for the residence of Omar and Liza Reyes at 88 Emerald Lane, Manila, describing the place to be searched as: “the first-floor living room, including the built-in 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. During execution, the team searches the living room and the cabinet and seizes methamphetamine and paraphernalia listed in the warrant. In the built-in cabinet they locate a ledger listing customers and shipments; they seize it as “documents showing drug distribution.” The team then opens a locked box inside the cabinet and finds 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 false back panel in the living room, 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?