Was the objection that the marijuana found 30 meters away from the house, outside the described search location, valid?

• A. The objection is valid.
• B. The marijuana should be admitted under plain view.
• C. The location distance is irrelevant to the warrant's scope.
• D. The seizure was lawful because the tanods had authority.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is the limits of a search warrant’s scope. A warrant authorizes searches and seizures only in the places described within it. Discovering marijuana 30 meters away from the house means the officers reached a location not covered by the warrant, so the seizure would be outside the allowed scope. Without a separate basis—such as valid consent, a plain-view seizure while lawfully present in the described location, or an exigent circumstance—the evidence should be suppressed because it resulted from an illegal extension of the search. The fact that tanods have certain authority does not automatically validate a search beyond what the warrant permits, and plain view does not rescue the situation here since the officers were not lawfully present in the off-location to begin with. Thus, the objection is valid.