N.D.Ind.: Business records warrant was specific and not overbroad

Identified business records for a specified time period was not overbroad. United States v. Simon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108079 (N.D. Ind. October 8, 2010):

A warrant satisfies the particularity requirement if the warrant tells a reasonable executing officer what items are to be seized. …

This warrant listed the Simons’ business affiliations and limited the records search concerning those businesses to a particular time frame. It specified tax documents within a particular time frame. The other categories of items are limited by subject matter rather than by time frame. Greater specificity would be needed for a search of an accountant’s office, but this warrant related to a residence.

Seizure of the financial aid documents neither exceeded the warrant’s scope nor demonstrated an impermissible lack of particularity. The financial aid applications contained information from the Simons about taxable income, expenses, and loans, and included copies of tax returns. The warrant specified evidence of the obtaining and concealment of assets by Mr. and Mrs. Simon, and the financial aid documents appear to fall within that category of items.

Defendant was encountered in the hallway of an apartment building by an officer looking for an immigration fugitive. The officer’s talking to him was not a seizure. The officer also told him to sit down on the floor, so he could be questioned later, and that was not a seizure either. When defendant revealed he was from Guatemala without papers, there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Castillo-Martinez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108154 (N.D. Iowa October 8, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.