Voss v. Bergsgaard

2 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. Wey et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support

    Filed May 27, 2016

    26 The passing reference to “proceeds of fraud” in paragraph 10 of Exhibit A to each warrant cannot suffice to save these warrants; indeed, courts have held that “even warrants that identify catchall statutory provisions, like the mail fraud or conspiracy statutes, may fail to comply” with the particularization requirement. Galpin, 720 F.3d at 445) (citing United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 594 (10th Cir.1988) (warrant authorizing search of export company's business records for violation of the “Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2778, and the Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C.App. § 2410,” held overbroad)); Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402 (10th Cir.1985) (warrant specifying 18 U.S.C. § 371 held overbroad); United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir.1980) (a limitation of a search to evidence relating to 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the general mail fraud statute, provides “no limitation at all”). Case 1:15-cr-00611-AJN Document 45 Filed 05/27/16 Page 46 of 105 15742826_10 33 Second, the warrants impermissibly authorize the seizure of any or all records.

  2. USA v. Liew et al

    MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants Christina Liew and Walter Liew's Motion to Supress Evidence

    Filed June 26, 2013

    s v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (1995), warrants authorizing seizure of all business records, without establishing how those records relate to specific criminal activities, are not sufficiently particular to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See also, In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 716 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1983) (search warrant authorizing agents to seize all records pertaining to defendant’s business was an invalid general warrant, where the warrant did not indicate that documents sought pertain to any specific transactions, did not identify offenses on which evidence was sought, and did not confine search to any particular files or categories of documents); Center Art Galleries - Hawaii, Inc., v. United States, 875 F.2d 747, 753-54 (9th Cir. 1989) (search warrant that provided almost unrestricted seizure from business establishment of items that were “evidence in violation of federal criminal law,” without describing specific crimes suspected, was constitutionally invalid); Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402, 406 (10th Cir. 1985) (in action by plaintiff seeking return of evidence seized by IRS in connection with tax fraud investigation, trial court properly ruled that warrants for search were invalid on particularity grounds since the bulk of the provisions simply allowed for seizure of evidence, whether or not related to tax fraud). B. This Impermissibly Overbroad Warrant Cannot Be Made Valid By The Good Faith Exception.