One House, Four Apartments: Eleventh Circuit Says Warrant Still Good

United States v. Schmitz, No. 24-11157 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2025)

TL;DR

• Holding: The Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of Schmitz’s motion to suppress. The search warrant describing the property as a single-family home was sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, even though the residence was subdivided into efficiency apartments unknown to officers.

  
  

• Importance: Reinforces that a warrant’s validity depends on what officers reasonably knew at the time of issuance—not on later discoveries that a property is subdivided. Maryland v. Garrison continues to control.

  
  

• Limits: If officers had reason to know the property contained separate units, the warrant would have been defective. Once subdivision is discovered during execution, officers must limit their search to the proper unit.

Facts

In January 2023, narcotics agents executed a warrant for 4279 Violet Circle, Lake Worth, FL, believing it to be a single-family residence occupied by Steven Schmitz. In reality, the property contained the owners’ home and three hidden efficiency apartments, one of which Schmitz rented.

The efficiencies lacked:

• Separate addresses or mailboxes,

• Exterior markings,

• Distinct trash cans or utilities.

Agents had surveilled the property for months and reviewed county records, which also listed it as a single-family home. Schmitz denied living there when stopped earlier that day.

Upon executing the warrant, officers first went to the main house, then were directed to Schmitz’s unit, where they used his keys to enter. Inside, they found guns, drugs, and contraband.

Schmitz was charged with cocaine distribution, firearm possession in furtherance of drug trafficking, being a felon in possession, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. He moved to suppress, arguing the warrant failed to particularly describe his apartment. The district court denied the motion, convicted him on stipulated facts, and sentenced him to 144 months.

Issues

1. Did the search warrant violate the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement by listing the general address of the property rather than Schmitz’s specific apartment?

   
   

2. Should the evidence be suppressed because officers knew or should have known the property was subdivided?

Court’s Decision (Holding)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Schmitz’s motion to suppress. The warrant sufficiently described the premises as officers reasonably believed it to be, and the evidence was lawfully seized. The case was remanded only to correct a clerical error in the judgment (wrongly stating Schmitz pled guilty instead of being found guilty at trial).

Reasoning

1. Fourth Amendment Particularity Standard

   • A warrant must “particularly describe” the place to be searched, but “elaborate specificity is unnecessary.”

   • Errors do not invalidate a warrant if officers can still reasonably identify the place intended.

     
     

2. Maryland v. Garrison Controls

   • As in Garrison, officers believed they were dealing with a single residence when it was actually subdivided.

   • Constitutionality is judged based on what officers knew (or should have known) at the time of issuance. Later discovery that the property had multiple units does not retroactively invalidate the warrant.

     
     

3. Why Officers’ Belief Was Reasonable

   • Surveillance showed only one mailbox, trash can, and address.

   • No exterior indications of multiple residences.

   • County property records listed it as a single-family home.

   • Schmitz himself denied living there when stopped.

     
     

4. Distinguishing United States v. Ellis

   • In Ellis, the warrant identified the wrong mobile home altogether—making it useless.

   • Here, the warrant correctly identified the property that actually contained Schmitz’s apartment. The error was overbreadth, not misidentification.

     
     

5. Arguments That Officers “Should Have Known” Rejected

   • Testimony about a “city worker” visitor lacked proof of police involvement.

   • Officers not stopping the landlord during errands did not show knowledge of separate units.

   • A “guest house” building permit did not clearly indicate separate apartments.

   • Multiple unrelated people living together is not uncommon and does not, by itself, imply multiple residences.

     
     

6. Concurring Opinion (Judge Kidd)

   • Emphasized that Fourth Amendment analysis has two layers:

     1. Validity of the warrant when issued.

     2. Reasonableness of its execution once new information emerges.

   • Once officers discovered Schmitz’s unit, they correctly limited their search to his apartment, ceasing activity in other units—mirroring Garrison and Ofshe.

Street Takeaways

• For Law Enforcement:

  • A warrant covering a single residence is valid if officers reasonably believed it was one unit, even if later revealed otherwise.

  • Always document surveillance, property records, and observed indicators to show the reasonableness of your belief.

  • Once you discover subdivision during execution, immediately narrow your search to the correct unit.

    
    

• For Defense:

  • The key suppression argument is whether officers “should have known” the property was multi-unit. Without clear external indicators, courts are reluctant to find Fourth Amendment violations.

Disclaimer

This case brief is for training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon for any specific case or controversy.