D.Minn.: The generic nature of the items to be seized did not nullify particularity where the crime was described

While the items sought in the search warrant were generic in nature, there still was probable cause for the search and the affiant showed sufficient reason to get access to it in an identity theft case. United States v. Okeayainneh, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65900 (D. Minn. May 13, 2011) (R&R), adopted 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65435 (D. Minn. June 20, 2011):

Defendant Okeayainneh argues that Attachment B covers almost anything that could be found in most households in the United States. Although that may be true, the argument is without merit because it fails to focus on what the warrant authorizes. The officers were limited in their search by the fact that the objects seized had to be identifiably related to the listed violations. The officers executing the search warrant could not predict the form in which relevant data would appear. Therefore, the warrant sought a variety of evidence directly related to the identity-theft and bank-fraud investigation. Although true that the category “any and all other documents, records items, items or other materials evidencing violations of Title 18, U.S.C. … sections 371, 473, 1028, 1028A, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1956, 1957 and 2113(b); and Title 31 U.S.C., section 5324” is broad in nature, this Court believes that the statement is sufficiently related to identity theft and bank fraud to satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and to allow the officers to recognize and seize the materials described.

Defendant’s reliance on Oregon law in his motion to suppress in federal court is unavailing. United States v. Pulido-Aguilar, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65512 (D. Ore. June 20, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.