S.D.Ohio: Clause in SW that is overbroad requires def to show what was seized under it

One overbroad clause in the search warrant didn’t require exclusion of the rest that was specifically covered. Defendant also didn’t show that which was seized under the overbroad section to have it excluded. United States v. Traum, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146798 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 24, 2016):

The portion of the search warrant that Defendant challenges as overbroad is a boiler-plate, catch-all clause. As the Sixth Circuit held in Greene, however, inclusion of this catch-all clause does not invalidate the entire search warrant. 250 F.3d at 477. The appropriate remedy for overbreadth is severing that clause from the search warrant. Id. (citing United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1027 (6th Cir.1991)).

Severing the overbroad clause from the warrant here does not provide any remedy to Defendant. Defendant does not identify the specific evidence seized pursuant to this clause that he seeks to suppress. Defendant asserts that items “such as currency, firearms and vehicles” were seized that “have not been shown to have any relationship to the offense.” (Doc. 131 at 5.) The vehicles were not seized pursuant to the catch-all clause. They are specifically listed on the first page of Attachment B. (Doc. 91-3 at 1.) On May 18, 2016, the Court granted, in part, Defendant Scott Traum’s motion for the return of currency and firearms seized from his residence. Defendant has not identified any other evidence seized pursuant to the catch-all clause that should be suppressed.

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Overbreadth. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.