In a money laundering case, the government satisfied the \u201call record\u201d exception to particularity of \u201cpervaded\u201d with fraud. United States v. D\u2019Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D. N.Y. 2010):<\/p>\n
When there is probable cause to believe that an entire business is \u201cpervaded\u201d or \u201cpermeated\u201d with fraud, seizure of all records of the business is appropriate, and broad language used in a search warrant will not offend the particularity requirement. See U.S. Postal Serv. v. C.E.C. Servs., 869 F.2d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 1989); Nat\u2019l City Trading Corp. v. United States, 635 F.2d 1020, 1024-25 (2d Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Smith, No. 05-CR-293A. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52377, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 2007) (\u201cAlthough the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment creates a general presumption against \u2018general\u2019 or \u2018all-records\u2019 warrants, courts, including the Second Circuit, have recognized an exception where there is probable cause to believe that criminal activity permeates the business to be searched.\u201d). This is known as the \u201c\u2018all-records\u2019 exception\u201d to the particularly requirement, United States v. Burke, 718 F. Supp. 1130, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), although \u201c[t]he principle is not so much an \u2018exception\u2019 to the particularity requirement\u2026 as a recognition that a warrant–no matter how broad–is, nonetheless, legitimate if its scope does not exceed the probable cause upon which it is based,\u201d United States v. Bowen, 689 F. Supp. 2d 675, 683 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted).<\/p>\n
In order to trigger the all-records exception, \u201cit is not necessary that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth specific factual evidence demonstrating that every part of the enterprise in question is engaged in fraud.\u201d Burke, 718 F. Supp. at 1139. \u201cRather, the affidavit need contain only sufficient factual evidence of fraudulent activity from which a magistrate could infer that those activities are \u2018just the tip of the iceberg.\u2019\u201d Id. (quoting United States v. Offices Known as 50 State Distributing Co., 708 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1021, 104 S. Ct. 1271, 104 S. Ct. 1272, 79 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading