IRS search warrant for the Oregon Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. was not overbroad, and the seizure of records outside the warrant was justified here, considering a taint team participated and the affidavit addressed what was seized. The foundation\u2019s lawyer was present during the search. United States v. Sedaghaty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37186 (D. Ore. April 13, 2010):<\/p>\n
Defendant asks that, at a minimum, the materials seized outside the warrant be suppressed, if not all of the evidence. [\u00b6] However, the warrant permitted seizures of the computers and media. Agent Anderson described a careful search protocol in which a search of the computers and data was done with search terms carefully tailored to information related to the items to be seized listed in the warrant. A taint team was utilized and coordination with the AUSA implemented whenever questions regarding whether information was covered by the warrant. The affidavit adequately explained why the computers had to be taken off-site for review and why they would likely contain evidence within the scope of the affidavit. Given the nature of the data and the fact that it had been deleted, the actions taken by the government were reasonable and permitted by the warrant as approved by Magistrate Cooney. See U.S. v. Banks<\/a>, 556 F.3d 967, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2009) (A generalized seizure of business documents may be justified if it is demonstrated that the government could not reasonably segregate documents on the basis of whether or not they were likely to evidence criminal activity). See also, United States v. SDI Future Health Inc.<\/a>, 568 F.3d 684, 699 (9th Cir. 2009) (an affidavit is part of a warrant, and therefore potentially curative of any defects, if (1) the warrant expressly incorporated the affidavit by reference and (2) the affidavit either is attached physically to the warrant or at least accompanies the warrant while agents execute the search).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Wal-Mart security who detained defendant and asked for his cell phone were not acting as agents of the police. They had motive to protect the integrity of the company from crime. United States v. Duffy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37495 (W.D. Ky. April 14, 2010),* USMJ R&R 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37563 (W.D. Ky. February 1, 2010).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading