Opinion ID: 65776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Search Under the Receivership Order

Text: Setser next contends that even if the Receivership Order as written was valid, the Receiver exceeded even the most expansive interpretation of the authority it granted by conducting a general, exploratory search and seizure of documents unrelated and inconsequential to the receivership. He argues that many of the documents and items taken by the receiver, particularly those from various residences, exceeded the scope of the receiver's mandate. Citing the SEC's complaint, Setser alleges the receiver could only marshal, conserve, protect and hold funds and assets of the defendants. In his view, the search went beyond the boundaries of a valid warrant and was presumptively unconstitutional. E.g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 569, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969). He quotes the testimony of one agent who assisted in the search to argue that the searchers were predisposed towards including, rather than excluding, documents from the search, that some documents taken were unrelated to the location or preservation of assets, and that documents were turned over to the FBI, in some cases, before anyone representing the receiver had viewed them at all. As a remedy, Setser suggests the suppression of all evidence against him because the search was conducted in flagrant disregard of the Receivership Order. See United States v. Shi Yan Liu, 239 F.3d 138, 140 (2d Cir.2000). Recognizing that this circuit has not adopted the flagrant disregard standard, he argues in the alternative that the evidence that was actually outside the scope of the Receivership Order must be suppressed. Setser does not identify the evidence that allegedly was seized outside the scope of the order and later admitted at trial. We do not rule in the abstract on questions of suppression. We must know what evidence was admitted in violation of some specifically identified right. See United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir.2005) (must specifically delineate how the introduction of the evidence affected the claim being made). Setser's response is that the scope of the receiver's seizures and the massive amount of evidence introduced at trial made identification of specific illegal evidence impossible. He seeks a remand for hearings to determine what evidence was illegally seized. Setser alleges that the search led to seizing photographs, business brochures, videotapes, [calendars], organizational charts, credit card bills, wedding invoices and letters of recommendation, and that search team members were instructed to retrieve information about how the IPIC business was operated, putting the search beyond the parameters of simply preserving its assets. There apparently was a massive amount of evidence obtained and later introduced. Yet we find no support that the evidence was anything other than what the Receivership Order allowed to be seized, which in summary were the properties, real and personal, tangible and intangible, of the defendants and their businesses. That seizure was necessary in order that the businesses could be operated. Because of the manner in which these businesses had been operated, or at least as jurors became convinced they had been, seizure of relevant documents revealed substantial criminal activity. At least at the level of practicality, we agree with Setser that it would have been difficult to address in a pretrial motion to suppress the significant quantity of evidence that was seized and likely would be introduced. Even in this post-trial appeal, though, we are satisfied that the evidence that convicted Setser was incriminating because it reflected the criminal manner in which the businesses were operated, which also means the evidence was the kind of records and other property that the receiver had the authority to seize. Absent any showing or meaningful suggestion of what evidence was introduced that might have been improperly acquired, we do not further pursue this issue.