Page 23
five hunting knives, a box of pellets, a screw-
driver set, three vehicles, and a small box con-
taining old coins, knives, watch, and jewelry.60
When a court hearing was held to determine the legality of
the search, one of the police officers admitted that it
was standard practice for his department to conduct open-
ended searches. Here is a telling excerpt from the tran-
script of the hearing:
COUNSEL: Would it be a fair statement that any-
thing of value in that house was taken?
MARTIN: Yes, sir. . . .
COUNSEL: And would it be a fair statement that
as long as you have been deputy in Sequoyah
County that when you all do a search that this
is the way in which it is conducted?
MARTIN: Yes, sir.
COUNSEL: You go in and look for everything
that's there, for any leads or anything that
might lead to something being stolen, or what-
ever?
MARTIN: Yes, sir.61
Foster's defense attorney moved to suppress as evidence
all of the property seized during the search. The trial
court granted that defense motion because the police had
"exhibited flagrant disregard for the terms of the warrant
by conducting a wholesale seizure of Foster's property
[which amounted] to a fishing expedition for the discovery
of incriminating evidence."62
The executive branch cannot be permitted to make a
mockery of the search warrant. When law enforcement offi-
cers disregard the terms of a warrant, the Constitution's
particularity requirement is undermined and a valid,
specific warrant is transformed into a general warrant.
Since judicial officers are not on the scene when search
warrants are flouted, the most opportune time to sanction
such lawlessness is when executive branch representatives
(prosecutors) come into court seeking the judge's permis-
sion to introduce the illegally obtained evidence. The
only way the judiciary can maintain the integrity of its
warrant-issuing process is by withholding its approval.
The judicial branch cannot--and should not--rely on the
executive branch to discipline its own agents.63