Two large records searches, not overbroad when read with the attachments

Defendant was lawyer involved in a fraud, and the court of appeals finds that his office was “permeated with fraud” such that a broad records search was permitted. Attachment A to the warrant limited discretion, and he contended it was never left after the search to keep him from knowing the scope of the investigation. That was only a Rule 41 subject to the prejudice requirement, even if it was a fact, but the district court found that it was left. United States v. Sigillito, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13729 (8th Cir. July 18, 2014).

An “any and all records” warrant was not overbroad, and the attachments restricted the officers’ seizing discretion. United States v. Ahmad, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96244 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2014).

With this standard in mind, the Court agrees with the Government that the warrant in this case was sufficiently particular. Although the warrant contains language authorizing the police to seize “any and all records,” this language was limited in several ways, including directing officers to search for specific financial records and documents. (See Warrant, Aff., Attach B.) The circumstances of the search and the nature of the things to be seized also served to limit the discretion of the officers who conducted the search. Under these circumstances, the warrant “falls within the practical margin of flexibility.” Torch, 609 F.2d at 1089; see also Oloyede, 982 F.2d at 139; Ark. Chronicle v. Murphy, 183 F. App’x 300, 306 (4th Cir. 2006). In any event, even if the search warrant was overly broad, suppression of the items seized is not justified because, as discussed above, “the officers executing the search warrant acted in objectively reasonable good faith when they relied on the validity of the search warrant.” Atwell, 289 F. Supp. 2d at 629.