Because documents are easily destroyed, the use of search warrants is often advantageous in obtaining documentary evidence without forewarning. To be lawful, search warrants must satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, which requires a specific description of the documents to be seized; however, many times the precise nature of the records sought is not known in advance. In resolving this dilemma, several courts have indicated that generic descriptions of the documents (descriptions by class or category) are permissible if followed by limiting language enabling the executing officers to separate the papers to be seized from the general class of documents described. Limiting phrases may narrow the general class of documents by reference to time periods, category, type of offense involved, or specific events of individuals. In some instances, broad language may be used if included in a warrant description that contains a lengthy list of specified documents limited by reference to specific crimes. Those drafting documentary search warrants should ask themselves if the literal wording of the warrant precludes the seizure of documents other than those for which probable cause has been established. If it does not, then the warrant is probably too broad and should be redrafted. Footnotes are provided. (Author abstract modified)