to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. It is well-established that “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of a private property without proper consent is ‘unreasonable’ unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant.” Camara v. Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). Moreover, in some instances a warrant does exist, but it is so “facially deficient ... that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid” and the search must be considered warrantless. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). That is precisely the case where a search and seizure is conducted pursuant to an expired writ. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 558-59, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 870
holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception holding warrant describing items to be seized as a twostory blue house invalid where petitioner did not alert the magistrate to the defect  and the court therefore cannot know whether the magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing