M.D. Pa.: Warrant for documents justified seizure of computer found at scene

Franks violation fails because, even if the omitted information was included, PC was still present. The warrant was not general because there was no unfettered discretion in the executing officers. The warrant sought documents, and finding a computer at the scene justified a seizure of the computer. United States v. Dieu Phan, 628 F. Supp. 2d 562 (M.D. Pa. 2009):

Likewise, the seizure of the computer was also justified. The search warrant authorized the seizure of documents related to Lynda Dieu Phan’s business and payroll. Computers often contain documents related to business. Moreover, in this case, the computer was found in Lynda Dieu Phan’s home office, in which the agents discovered many documents related to Lynda Dieu Phan’s business. Under these circumstances, it follows that other documents relating to Lynda Dieu Phan’s business would also be contained in the computer. Accordingly, the incriminating nature of the computer was immediately apparent, and the officers’ seizure of the computer was justified.

Exigent circumstances or a warrantless in home arrest was not justified because the officers’ information that the defendant would flee to another state was really thin. United States v. Perez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43843 (M.D. Pa. May 21, 2009):

With respect to the first point, the Court was not convinced — as a factual matter — that officers had a genuine concern about Defendant’s potential flight to New Jersey or elsewhere that could not have been addressed by placing 510 Minor Street under surveillance pending the issuance of a warrant. Although the government produced testimony that surveilling the house was difficult given the layout and demographics of the neighborhood, the Court does not perceive how these concerns equate with concern over securing the house and area around it. Indeed, there was testimony that Corporal Harris and others spent considerable time in the neighborhood over the course of the afternoon on April 21st and while surveillance may have been compromised it does not automatically follow that officers were unable to secure the location while a warrant could be obtained, particularly as it was not clear that officers needed to maintain secret surveillance of Perez’s residence as part of its plan to arrest him.

The Court well appreciates the considered judgment that law enforcement officers must exercise, particularly in fast moving investigations such as was taking place on April 20th and April 21st. Nevertheless, the Court must consider that factor among many others within the context of the facts the government developed during the evidentiary hearings. The Court ultimately found the evidence regarding Defendant’s potential flight to New Jersey to be especially thin, and all the more so given Defendant’s apparent ties to the area such as his home and family. Moreover, no officer testified that they were in “hot pursuit” of Defendant at any point during this investigation that might justify a warrantless arrest to prevent escape. Furthermore, the Court does not find support in the record for the assertion that officers were powerless to secure the area around 510 Minor Street pending issuance of a warrant. For all of these reasons, the Court does not find a risk of Defendant’s imminent flight justified his warrantless arrest.

Court asked for briefing on the effect of Gant on the search incident at issue and concludes it has none. Defendant’s obstruction during the search was a new crime, and a search incident was proper then. Also, there was PC to believe evidence would be in the car. [That doesn’t necessarily make sense, does it? What’s the evidence of obstruction? It does not matter in this case, but the language is troubling for the future.] United States v. Perdoma, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43785 (D. Neb. May 22, 2009).*