CA5: SW was not for all business records, just types of employment records and it was particular enough

Defendant was convicted of encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the United States. A search warrant for his business sought types of employment records, and it was not overly broad. “[G]eneric language is permissible if it particularizes the types of items to be seized.” It was all sufficient under the good faith exception. United States v. Anderton, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22845 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018):

Anderton mischaracterizes the breadth of Attachment F. For example, Attachment F does not state that “all employee records” may be seized. Instead, it permits the seizure of: “[e]mployee earning and leave statements, employee payroll records, employee time sheets, H2-B visa employee passport and visa records, I-129 Nonimmigrant Worker petition records, U.S. citizen applicant rejection letters, [and] contractor invoices.” The descriptions of other types of items, although broad, are sufficiently particularized as to confine the discretion of the officers conducting the search. After all, “generic language is permissible if it particularizes the types of items to be seized.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). United States v. Leon held that “evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible.” United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S. Ct. at 3420). Attachment F was sufficiently particular for the good-faith exception to apply.