I really liked your use of Ezra 7:26 at the end of your discussion thread! It is particularly
relevant and appropriate in the context of this assignment.
On the merits, I tentatively agree the evidence should not be suppressed, but for different
reasons than those you gave, including the fact that this incident occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia,
and under Virginia law rooms inside of a house are not separate "dwellings," as discussed below,
thus meaning there was no ability to regard such as separate dwellings for Fourth Amendment
purposes and the search of the entire second floor was lawful and evidence therefrom admissible.
First, if the officers executing the warrant reasonably interpreted the phrase "second floor
dwelling" to mean the entire second floor, including any rooms constituting separate apartments,
then under Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987), the evidence should not be suppressed. In
Garrison, the Court stated that
“[i]f the officers had known, or should have known, that the third floor contained
two apartments before they entered the living quarters on the third floor, and thus
had been aware of the error in the warrant, they would have been obligated to
limit their search to McWebb's apartment.” Garrison, 480 U.S. at 86 (emphasis
added).
Here, the officers saw and knew the second floor was divided into two separate apartments
before they did the search; Garrison thus precluded them from doing the search, suggesting
suppression may be appropriate. However, Garrison also went on to note that if the officers
reasonably perceived the separate apartment and third floor were “one and the same[, then] their
execution of the warrant reasonably included the entire third floor” and was not a Fourth
Amendment violation and did not require suppression. Id, Garrison, 480 U.S. at 88. The Court
focused on whether the officers’ decision to conduct the search “was objectively understandable
and reasonable” in the circumstances. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 88.
In the case under discussion, this Garrison analysis can be applied to whether the officers’
interpretation of the phrase “second floor dwelling” to include both Apartment A and Apartment
B was understandable and reasonable. I have heard entire apartment buildings referred to as a
"dwelling," not "dwellings," and the word "dwelling" could thus be reasonably interpreted to
refer to an area where humans dwell, even if comprised of multiple apartments, thus making the
officers interpretation of the phrase "second floor dwelling" to include all second floor
apartments in the house permissible to search under the warrant. Consider other definitions of
"dwelling":
“(1) any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed
or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant
land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of
any such building, structure, or portion thereof; or (2) any single structure, with
auxiliary buildings, occupied by one or more persons or households for residential
purposes.” www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/dwelling (last visited 6/13/22 at
1255am).
Because “second floor dwelling” could reasonably be interpreted to apply to the entire second
floor and any and all apartments on such, the officers searching both apartments pursuant to such
an interpretation would not be objectively unreasonable, even moreso since warrants may issue
authorizing the search of one place that includes multiple dwellings. See, e.g., U.S. v. Alexander,
761 F.2d 1294, 1301 (9th Cir. 1985)(warrant authorizing the search of an entire ranch was not
overbroad, even though there were multiple dwellings on the ranch, because the entire property
was under the suspect's control). “[A] warrant is valid when it authorizes the search of a street
address with several dwellings if the defendants are in control of the whole premises, if the
dwellings are occupied in common, or if the entire property is suspect.” Blight v. City of
Manteca, 944 F.3d 1061, 1066-1067 (9th Cir. 2019)(internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Importantly, however, this incident occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia, and under Virginia
law rooms inside of a house are not separate dwellings, also known as dwelling houses:
all “dwelling houses” [viz, dwellings] must have an occupant in order to satisfy
the definition of “dwelling house” and…all dwelling houses are necessarily
occupied in the sense that they are regular residences. Thus, the definition
contemplates a residence within which human beings sleep or habitate. It does
not contemplate individual rooms or compartments within such a "residence,"
that are not "dwelling houses" in and of themselves (such as a rented room
within a larger dwelling, intended to be the place of habitation/residence for the
individual residing therein).
Hitt v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 473, 481-482, 598 S.E.2d 783, 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2004)
(emphasis added)(bracketing supplied)(internal citations and some quotation marks omitted). In
Hill, the Court went on to explain that even breaking and entering a privately rented bedroom in
a house is not the crime of burglary or breaking and entering because it is not a dwelling, the
house is. Id. Thus, under Virginia law, it appears that Apartments A and B, which were evidently
merely rented rooms on the second floor of a house, are not separate “dwellings.” In this regard,
because they are not separate dwellings, how should the officers interpret the search warrant’s
command to search the “second floor dwelling”? In my opinion, their interpretation of such to
include the entire second floor, and all rooms/apartments on such, was appropriate and
reasonable under Virginia law. Again, under Virginia law, such rooms/apartments were not even
dwellings, and for such reason not separate dwellings requiring they each be specifically
mentioned in the warrant in order for searching both of such to be constitutional.
In God’s eyes, no evidence is suppressible, for God knows of all evidence and all things
and judges accordingly. No one can escape punishment for their sin in God’s Court, which every
human will face. Marijuana and other drugs are poisonous, toxic, and harmful to humans, and
God prohibits desecrating one’s body, harming oneself, and being intoxicated or drunk. See, e.g.,
Galatians 5:21 (those who practice “intoxication” or “drunkenness” are not part of God’s
kingdom)(New International Version). In God’s Court, you do not even have the right to counsel.
The only advocate you can have is the Messiah, but only if you confess your sins, repent, and put
faith in and obey the Messiah.
