E.D.N.Y.: Re-search of email in 2024 on a 2022 SW was unreasonable and not protected by GFE

The government seized seven years of defendants’ email records in 2022 but the FBI’s computer somehow lost it. So they re-searched the data in 2024. “The Government asserts that it accessed the full return of data received pursuant to the 2022 Gmail Warrant again in 2024 in an attempt to re-create the responsiveness report the FBI had first generated in 2022.” The court finds the 2022 warrant didn’t cover the 2024 search of the data. However, “The good faith exception does not apply to the Government’s 2024 search.” Inevitable discovery may apply because of a search of email through a 2024 home warrant. That question is reserved for now. United States v. Sun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80278 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2025):

The Government’s discussion of the temporal reasonableness of the 2024 search as a basis for the good faith exception is again misplaced, for the same reason as discussed above: the 2024 search was not unreasonable because of its timing, it was unreasonable because the warrant it purported to execute had already been executed and the Government failed to obtain a new warrant to authorize the search. And although the Government asserts that the 2024 search was not “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or [reflecting] recurring or systemic negligence,” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009), in addition to the fact that the search ignored Second Circuit precent, the Government concedes in the very next paragraph of its opposition to Sun’s motion to suppress “the agents’ relative inexperience with electronic review.” Seemingly pointing to systemic negligence, that not one FBI agent stopped to get a warrant before conducting a new search (not to mention the “inadvertent” deletion of the original 2022 review, for which the Government has provided no explanation and which seemingly went unnoticed for almost two years) is the exact type of conduct the exclusionary rule is in place to deter, not evidence of “good faith” such that the exclusionary rule would not apply. See Davis, 564 U.S. at 238.

This entry was posted in E-mail, Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.