CA4: Blanket suppression of records was unjustified

Blanket suppression of search for records was unwarranted. The critical records sought were fairly within the search warrant and should have not been suppressed. United States v. Srivastava, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18817 (4th Cir. September 3, 2008), reversing United States v. Srivastava, 444 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2006), reconsideration denied, United States v. Srivastava, 476 F. Supp. 2d 509 (D. Md. 2007):

Finally, having determined that the Potomac Documents and the Bank of India Transfers were within the ambit of the search warrants for the Potomac residence and the Greenbelt office, we assess the government’s challenge to the blanket suppression of all the seized evidence. In that respect, the district court found that the warrants had been so flagrantly and unconstitutionally executed that a blanket suppression was justified. We have consistently recognized, however, that, “[a]s a general rule, if officers executing a search warrant exceed the scope of the warrant, only the improperly-seized evidence will be suppressed; the properly-seized evidence remains admissible.” United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 556 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1369 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that “[t]he exclusionary rule does not compel suppression of evidence properly covered by a warrant merely because other material not covered by the warrant was taken during the same search”). We have also recognized that only extraordinary circumstances–such as when “the warrant application merely serves as a subterfuge masking the officers’ lack of probable cause,” or if “the officers flagrantly disregard [] the terms of the warrant” by “engag[ing] in a fishing expedition for the discovery of incriminating evidence” — will justify the suppression of lawfully seized evidence. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 706 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).