Opinion ID: 3066115
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Kahre’s Motions To Suppress

Text: Kahre contends that his arrest and the seizure of payroll funds at Bank of the West were the products of an illegal, pretextual search. The district court declined to address this issue on the merits, concluding that the motion to suppress was moot because the government was not introducing the seized evidence at trial. The record confirms the district court’s conclusion that the seized evidence was not introduced at trial, thereby rendering the motion to suppress moot. See United States v. Arias-Villanueva, 998 F.2d 1491, 1502 (9th Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, suppression was not required merely because the arrest and corresponding search by federal agents were premised on a state warrant. See United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409, 1415–16 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity of a federal agent’s arrest and search premised on a state warrant). Because the agents acted pursuant to a valid state arrest warrant, the payroll funds were properly seized in the search incident to Kahre’s arrest. See United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 631 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 UNITED STATES V. KAHRE Relying on Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g),5 Kahre contends that the payroll funds seized during his arrest should have been returned. However, Rule 41 is inapplicable, as the seized funds were applied to Kahre’s tax liabilities pursuant to a notice of levy. See United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 388–89 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n IRS tax levy will defeat a Rule 41(e) motion. . . . Regardless of whether the defendant owes federal taxes or state taxes, the existence of a tax levy demonstrates a right to possession adverse to that of the defendant.”) (citation omitted).6 The district court, therefore, properly denied Kahre’s motion to suppress and his request for the return of the seized funds pursuant to Rule 41. Finally, Kahre asserts that the search warrants for the Bledsoe, Kimberly, and Grand Canyon properties were invalid general warrants because they did not specify any criminal activity. To resolve this claim, we “must answer the threshold question of whether the warrant[s] incorporated Special Agent [Halper’s] affidavit.” United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 568 F.3d 684, 699 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (citation omitted). “If it was incorporated, then we 5 Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) provides: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings. 6 The 1996 version of Rule 41(e) corresponds to the current version of Rule 41(g). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) (1996). UNITED STATES V. KAHRE 21 evaluate the affidavit and the warrant as a whole, allowing the affidavit to cure any deficiencies in the naked warrant.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “We consider an affidavit to be part of a warrant, and therefore potentially curative of any defects, only 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.” Id. (citations omitted). “A warrant expressly incorporates an affidavit when it uses suitable words of reference. . . .” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The challenged warrants in this case expressly incorporated the affidavit, and a copy of the affidavit accompanied the warrants. As discussed, the affidavits detailed criminal activities committed in conjunction with Kahre’s operation – failure to file tax returns, failure to withhold employment taxes, and conspiracy to evade taxes and to interfere with administration of the tax laws by the IRS. Because the search warrants, read in tandem with the accompanying affidavits, described specific crimes, the searches were not conducted pursuant to an impermissible general warrant. See id. at 699–702. Kahre further contends that, because the warrants lacked any limitations, seizure of items was improperly left to the agents’ discretion. “The prohibition of general warrants imposes a particularity limitation, requiring warrants to specify the items to be seized and the locations to be searched. . . .” United States v. Vasquez, 654 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The description must be specific enough to enable the person conducting the search reasonably to identify the things 22 UNITED STATES V. KAHRE authorized to be seized. . . .” United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d 992, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and alteration omitted). Attachment B to the warrants sufficiently limited the agents’ discretion. Although Attachment B utilized the phrase “all records,” the search was temporally limited to records “[f]or the period January 1, 1992, until December 31, 1993; and January 1, 1997 to present date[.]”7 The 7 Attachment B specified the search parameters as: For the period January 1, 1992, until December 31, 1993; and January 1,1997 to present date: A. All records which deal with: Robert Kahre, Bobby Kahre, or ALPS, Bobby K’s Carpet Service, Bobby K’s Home Care Service, Inc., Gold Contracts and Associates, HGK Products, Inc., Master Paints Distributing, Master Paints, Production Electric, Production Metal, Production Plumbing and Air Conditioning, Punchout Industries, Sherman Carpets, Sherman Tile and Marble, Sherman Granite and Tile, Union Pacific, Union Pacific Construction, Wright Painting and Drywall, Wright Painting, Wright Products, Inc., and any other business entities associated or related to Robert Kahre, including but not limited to, ledgers, journals, proposals, estimates, bids, contracts, correspondence to and from general contractors/sub-contractors/clients/customers/state agencies, labor records, employee records, time cards, expense records, income records, tax documents, tax returns, state records, payroll records, insurance records, incorporation records, incorporation filings, financial records, records showing the disposition of funds and acquisition of assets, scales, weighing device(s), records of the acquisition of gold or silver, disposition of gold or silver, contracts and correspondence that deal with the acquisition and UNITED STATES V. KAHRE 23 disposition of gold or silver, literature describing the use of gold or silver, envelopes which appear to be used for payroll purposes, labels, employee listings, employee identifying information and files, records of off-site storage, records of security alarms or personnel.