This was not an \u201call records\u201d search warrant. It was limited to evidence of defendant\u2019s “affiliation and association with” civilian militias in Ethiopia and that he was indicted and convicted in absentia there. United States v. Belayneh, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82368 (N.D. Ga. May 10, 2023):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Attachment B then provided five illustrative subsections, listing the types of documents that would be relevant: (a) documents and physical objects relating to Defendant’s the Derg, Ethiopian political movements, and the Red Terror; (b) documents and physical objects relating to Defendant’s identity and life outside of the United States; (c) documents and physical objects related to Defendant’s “immigration to, and naturalization in, the United States” and immigration to and from other countries; (d) written correspondence, journal entries, or other writings; and (e) any documents showing that Defendant “had knowledge that he was indicted and convicted, in absentia, of human rights violations” in Ethiopia. (See Doc. 31-2 at 4). In other words, agents could not seize “all records” as Defendant contends; instead, the records had to relate to Defendant’s identity, subversive political affiliations, human rights violations in Ethiopia, and his efforts to secure naturalization in the United States.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This was not an \u201call records\u201d search warrant. It was limited to evidence of defendant\u2019s “affiliation and association with” civilian militias in Ethiopia and that he was indicted and convicted in absentia there. United States v. Belayneh, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading