Opinion ID: 181032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disclosure of Searches & Seizures

Text: Before trial, the defendants filed a motion asking that the district court order the government to affirm or deny whether any interceptions, searches, seizures, orders, or subpoenas of their communications ha[d] occurred. The district court denied the motion, explaining that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 only requires the government to disclose certain types of evidence. The district court also noted that the government had indicated it would turn over at the appropriate time any Jencks Act or Brady materials. The defendants now argue that the district court erred in denying their motion. They claim that Rule 16 provide[s] a floor, but not a ceiling, on the government's disclosure obligations.... Appellant's Br. at 148. In addition, they argue that, without disclosure of the government's investigative practices, they would have no way of knowing whether their Fourth Amendment rights were being trampled. Invoking the government's almost limitless technological capacity to secretly search computers and electronic communications, the defendants essentially argue that discovery should serve as another check on the government's electronic incursions into the privacy of citizens. But the defendants cite no authority in support of their position. There is, however, authority for the proposition that the government's discovery obligations are limited. In United States v. Presser, this court held that Rule 16 requires the government to disclose to the defense before trial only specific categories of evidence. 844 F.2d 1275, 1284 (6th Cir.1988). Those categories include: prior statements of the defendant, the defendant's prior criminal record, documents, photographs, or tangible objects, which are within the custody or control of the government and which are material to the defense or intended for use by the government in its case-in-chief at trial or which were obtained from or belong to the defendant, and the results of any mental or physical examinations performed on the defendant which are material to the defense or which are intended for use by the government as evidence in its case-in-chief at trial. Id. at 1284-85. Furthermore, the Presser court held that the discovery afforded by Rule 16 is limited to the evidence referred to in its express provisions. Id. at 1285. Consequently, [t]he rule provides no authority for compelling the pre-trial disclosure of Brady material, or of any other evidence not specifically mentioned by the rule. Ibid. (internal citations omitted). In light of this precedent, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' discovery motion. See Gray, 521 F.3d at 529 (holding that a district court's discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion).