suppression hearing, however, Officer Roberts testified that at least one witness had indicated that the shooter used a handgun. He further stated that he suspected Mr. Jimenez, whom Officer Roberts knew had a prior felony conviction, of being a felon in possession of a firearm — in which case Mr. Jimenez’s possession of “any firearm” would be evidence of the commission of a crime. The affidavit did not reveal that Mr. Jimenez had a prior felony conviction, however, and he therefore contends that as to the investigation of the battery, the warrant was overbroad. We agree that the warrant was overbroad. Though there was probable cause to search for a handgun, the warrant authorized a search for “any firearms.” See United, States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, though probable cause existed that
holding warrant was overbroad when probable cause existed to search for a pistol but warrant permitted search and seizure of all firearms and ammunition holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant holding that seizure of ammunition gun clips and related firearm paraphernalia was permitted under plainview doctrine where warrant simply authorized seizure of firearms