{"id":2432,"date":"2008-09-03T06:29:34","date_gmt":"2008-09-03T06:27:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-03T06:27:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2432","title":{"rendered":"When IRS satisfies Powell<\/em> for a subpoena, there is no Fourth Amendment claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the IRS satisfies Powell<\/em><\/a>‘s minimal requirements for enforcement of a summons for records, there is no Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Clark, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66358 (D. Conn. August 29, 2008):<\/p>\n

Mr. Clark’s final argument is that complying with the summons would deprive him of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Margolis’ recommended ruling that enforcement of the IRS summons does not violate Mr. Clark’s Fourth Amendment rights. Courts have repeatedly recognized that “enforcement of an IRS summons does not violate the fourth amendment as long as the IRS has complied with the Powell<\/em> requirements.” United States v. Reis<\/em>, 765 F.2d 1094, 1096 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Fisher v. United States<\/em>, 425 U.S. 391, 401 n.7 (1976) (stating that although taxpayers had not raised any Fourth Amendment arguments, they “could not be successful if they had. The summonses are narrowly drawn and seek only documents of unquestionable relevance to the tax investigation”); United States v. Abrahams<\/em>, 905 F.2d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[S]atisfaction of the Powell<\/em> requirements serve[s] to ensure that the summons d[oes] not violate the fourth amendment by lacking sufficient cause.”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); United States v. Theep<\/em>, 502 F.2d 797, 798 (9th Cir. 1974) (“the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment do not protect the taxpayer from an IRS summons”); …. Here, because the Court finds that the IRS has satisfied the Powell<\/em> requirements, there is no Fourth Amendment violation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}