The government asserted plain view as justifying the seizure, but it violated plain view in rifling through documents. That was not a plain view. The court earlier in the opinion credited the defendants on who the raid took place since the officers couldn\u2019t get their stories together. United States v. Hu, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120898 (W.D. N.Y. January 21, 2011):<\/p>\n
The government argues that \u201cto the extent that [agent Hurwitz] may have been mistaken in his assessment of some of the articles seized, the blanket suppression of all physical evidence obtained in the Hu\/Ln apartment is simply too draconian a sanction\u201d. Government\u2019s memorandum [687], pp.16-17.<\/p>\n
To characterize Agent Hurwitz\u2019s assessment of the documents seized as \u201cmistaken\u201d is far too charitable. He admitted that he did not even look at all of the documents before seizing them ([481], p.30), and his explanations for seizing many of the documents which he did look at strain credulity. For example, he seized a composition notebook because \u201cpeople that are engaged in illegal businesses keep their records in notebooks such as this\u201d ([481], p.34), and seized a \u201cbill … from Citibank, which appeared to be financial records. And there\u2019s also papers from a bank. Metlife is an insurance company that insures properties, which could have been properties purchased with the proceeds of counterfeit merchandise\u201d. Id., pp.37-38. When confronted with documents such as an insurance receipt and a pain clinic card which he had seized, he had no idea how they were incriminating. [507], p.121. Finally, he admitted that several of the seized documents were written in Chinese. Id., p.40.<\/p>\n
Nor did the manner in which he observed the documents comport with the requirements of a valid plain view search. He testified that there were numerous stacks of paper, and that \u201c[t]he documents on top were viewed; they were then seized. When they were seized, more documents were revealed; they were reviewed and seized . … [T]he stack of paper, if the paper on top appeared to be incriminating, that stack of papers was taken\u201d ([481], p.104). He admitted that some of the papers \u201cwere in plain view … only after [he] moved other documents\u201d. Id., p.105.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading