W.D.Mo.: Treaty request for financial information from Cayman Islands was not based on materially false information; based on employee search of computer

This case involves a Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) between the U.S. and the Cayman Islands. The U.S. has to make an application to the Cayman Islands for information, including the justification, and, here, that request is challenged as in a Franks challenge, that the information provided by the U.S. was false by being misleading and by omissions. The court finds the erroneous statements not materially misleading. Defendant also asserts that an unreasonable search of electronic evidence led to the TIEA request. The court finds there was no illegal search, and, even if there was, there was enough already in hand to make the request without it, thus finding an independent basis for the request. United States v. Womack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47833 (W.D.Mo. March 14, 2016)

In the same case, the IRS agents had a reasonable belief in the common authority of defendant’s employee over her work computer and work email files that she could copy them and turn them over to the IRS. United States v. Womack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47834 (W.D.Mo. March 14, 2016):

It is clear that Brandy Wheeler had common authority over her e-mails and the files from the F and S drives. Wheeler had created or received all of the subject e-mails and she had full control over files on the F and S drives. (See Fact No. 7, supra) The government produced evidence sufficient to show that Brandy Wheeler had the requisite authority to consent to the government’s search of the electronic evidence. But, even if Wheeler did not in fact have authority to consent to the officers searching the disks, the Court finds that Special Agent Witt reasonably believed that Wheeler had the authority to consent. “[T]he rule for law-enforcement officers’ reliance on a consenting party’s apparent authority ‘is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable.'” United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 615 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185-86 (1990)). Special Agent Witt testified that it was his understanding that Wheeler had full access to the records she took as part of her work duties. (See Fact No. 7, supra) There is no Fourth Amendment violation regarding Brandy Wheeler’s e-mails and the files from the F and S drives.