CA6: In an export violation case, the SW was broad as it needed to be, but not overbroad, considering the extent of the investigation

The search warrant in an export violation case was not overbroad considering what was under investigation. The defendant was accused of unlawfully shipping telecommunications equipment to Iraq in violation of an embargo through intermediaries in different countries. At the time of the search, the government did not know the breadth of the conspiracy. Limiting the search to email subject lines might have caused the investigators to miss important evidence. The warrant was not an “all records” search, and it was tailored to look for evidence of the crime at hand. Some emails in evidence had blank subject lines, and the government was entitled to try to figure out who else was involved by the senders and recipients. United States v. Hanna, 661 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 2011).*

Mail was addressed to the defendants from the Pinellas County jail disguised as legal mail, and the defendants were under investigation in a white collar fraud case. Search warrants were obtained for the mail after an FBI agent acting as a “taint team” determined that they were not legal mail. Mary Morgan had no standing to contest a search of mail addressed to John Morgan. United States v. Morgan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88876 (M.D. Fla. August 10, 2011).*

In his 2255, defendant argued that his counsel did not “properly” argue the suppression motion that was filed and litigated and appealed. He doesn’t say how, so no claim is presented. United States v. Perez-Jacome, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89617 (D. Kan. August 11, 2011).*

The officer showed the defendant a printed phrase book of Spanish in Law Enforcement which was a request for consent, and the court finds that sufficient for consent. Once granted, consent extends the stop. United States v. Lamela-Cardenas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89003 (S.D. Ala. August 10, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.