Background
While Fabian Swank was jailed in Dubuque County, deputies heard him ask his mother, Rose Swank, to delete explicit photos and videos from his phone depicting him committing sexual acts on a child. Police obtained a warrant to search Rose’s residence at “1171 [Residence] Road #1” and seize the phone.
The apartment building’s exterior numbering was confusing. Officers initially contacted a neighbor at 1173, then determined that Rose lived in the adjacent apartment at 1171, whose door displayed the number 2. They seized the phone, obtained a second warrant to search its contents, and recovered recently deleted sexual images and videos. Swank conditionally pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of possessing depictions of a minor engaged in prohibited sex acts, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. The warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient specificity under Iowa Code section 808.3(1)(a), even though it identified Rose’s apartment as number 1 rather than number 2.
Rose’s apartment was the only apartment at 1171 [Residence] Road, and the warrant further identified it as the residence of Rose Marie Swank. Thus, the apartment number added no necessary identifying information and was surplusage. The street address and resident’s name enabled officers using reasonable effort to identify the intended premises without a meaningful risk of searching the wrong apartment. The court assumed without deciding that Swank had standing because his claim failed on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A warrant need not be hypertechnical; it must enable a reasonable person to identify the intended place to be searched.
- An inaccurate apartment number did not invalidate this warrant where the street address identified only one apartment and the warrant also named its resident.
- Confusing building signage did not create a particularity defect where officers reasonably confirmed the correct residence before searching it.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a minor error in a warrant’s address will not require suppression when the warrant as a whole still confines officers to one identifiable location. Identifying the resident can independently narrow the authorized premises and help establish sufficient particularity in a multiunit setting.