CA10: While SW was somewhat general, the affidavit narrowed it

In an IRS and mail fraud case, the warrants were necessarily broad, but they were not constitutionally overbroad. United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011):

However, despite the generality of the warrants themselves, the supporting affidavits fill in many of the necessary details. In particular, the affidavits flesh out how the conduct being investigated is related to the statutes listed on the warrants. For example, the affidavits indicate that “[t]he use of the United States mail and commercial interstate carriers to transport Renaissance promotional materials or other matters in furtherance of this scheme or artifice to defraud United States consumers is in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, which is mail fraud.” … Furthermore, they describe various “mailings [that] contained Renaissance promotional material such as videotapes, brochures, tax forms, and other material containing some false and misleading information,” … and various bank and brokerage accounts held by Mr. Cooper, Renaissance, or associated entities, …. Importantly, the affidavits also include a list of “[i]tems to be seized,” …, which—when read in conjunction with the warrant and the remainder of each affidavit—would “enable[] the [executing officers] to reasonably ascertain and identify the things authorized to be seized,” Riccardi, 405 F.3d at 862 (quoting Leary, 846 F.2d at 600). Contrary to Mr. Cooper’s assertions, the warrants and affidavits do much more than “merely recit[e] the mail fraud and money laundering statutes.” ….

Furthermore, as noted above, “[e]ven a warrant that describes the items to be seized in broad or generic terms may be valid when the description is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.” Riccardi, 405 F.3d at 862 (quoting Leary, 846 F.2d at 600). In other words, whether a search warrant is sufficiently particular depends in part on the nature of the crimes being investigated. Warrants relating to more complex and far-reaching criminal schemes may be deemed legally sufficient even though they are less particular than warrants pertaining to more straightforward criminal matters. See United States v. Hargus, 128 F.3d 1358, 1362 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e are satisfied that [the warrant] is sufficiently limited and specific, in view of the nature of this extended conspiracy and other crimes for which he was being investigated ….”); … Indeed, the complex and comprehensive nature of the broad scheme of financial criminal activity implicated in this case “makes it difficult to list with great particularity the precise items desired to be seized which evidence such activity.” Janus Indus., 48 F.3d at 1554. In the face of this difficulty, the affiants provided a meaningful and sufficient amount of detail.

Every complex white collar case with a search warrant seems to include a claim that the warrant was overbroad, yet they seldom succeed. The more complicated and paper heavy the crime under investigation, the more is allowed in the breadth of the warrant. Few of these challenges seem to succeed because the government is allowed significant leeway in expressing what needs to be searched for just as a matter of practicality.