N.D.Tex.: Two defs given standing to challenge seizure of their emails on co-def business’s account

Defendants were charged in a dietary supplement mislabeling conspiracy. On the claim of overseizure, the warrant specified “angeline” but the court concludes anything related to it was seizable as well without violating particularity. Two defendants were given standing to challenge seizure of their emails in the company’s email account. The search warrant unambiguously allowed seizure and copying of computers, and that is permitted. United States v. USPlabs, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29238 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2019). As to that standing and other standing claims:

To the extent Defendants Geissler and Hebert seek to suppress their own private communications, unrelated to USPlabs’ business and affairs, the court concludes they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private affairs and, thus, have standing to challenge the search of USPlabs’ business premises and the usplabsdirect.com e-mails stored with App River. To the extent they are attempting to raise vicariously the Fourth Amendment rights of USPlabs, however, they lack standing to challenge the search of USPlabs’ business premises and the usplabsdirect.com e-mails stored with App River, as they have made no attempt to meet their burden of demonstrating standing in this regard. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 133-34 (“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.”). With respect to the search of Geissler’s home, the Government concedes that Geissler has standing to challenge the search. The court agrees with the Government that Hebert has failed to meet his burden of showing a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to Geissler’s home and, accordingly, he lacks standing to challenge that search. Whether Geissler has standing to challenge the seizure of items belonging to Ms. Brewer that were seized from his home was not adequately briefed by the parties, and the court will not address this issue.

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure, Particularity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.