Opinion ID: 77841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Warrant Searches

Text: Khanani and Portlock both contend that the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence obtained from the searches performed. Specifically, Khanani and Portlock assert that the computer searches violated the Fourth Amendment in that: 1) the agents flagrantly disregarded warrant terms; 2) the warrant and supporting affidavit failed to identify any protocol or strategy for searching the computers and for ensuring that search remained within the probable cause limitations of the warrant; and, 3) the agents failed to keep any record or log of the searches that they conducted of the computer hard drives. Separately, Portlock contends that agents seized Portlock's office computers without probable cause and that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress other tangible evidence seized during searches of his office and storage unit. Khanani and Portlock posit that we should vacate the convictions and remand for a determination whether the government can carry its burden of showing that the district court's refusal to suppress computer evidence constituted harmless error. In reviewing the district court's denial of the defendants' motions to suppress the fruits of the government's searches, we examine the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Pratt, 438 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Total suppression of all items seized, including items within a warrant's scope, is not appropriate unless the executing officers' conduct exceeded any reasonable interpretation of the warrant's provisions. United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). [A]bsent a `flagrant disregard' of the terms of the warrant, the seizure of items outside the scope of a warrant will not affect admissibility of items properly seized, id. (citations omitted), or constitute reversible error on a direct appeal from the conviction. United States v. Lambert, 887 F.2d 1568, 1572 (11th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that search warrants particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The point of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement is to protect individuals from being subjected to general, exploratory searches. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). After a review of the record and defendants' arguments, we find that under all the circumstances, the searches and seizures were reasonable. See Wuagneux, 683 F.2d at 1352. We do not find evidence that suggests a flagrant disregard of the terms of the warrant such that blanket suppression of all items seized was required. See id. at 1354. Testimony at the suppression hearing established that all agents participating in the search of the first thirteen sites had been required to attend a briefing and to read the Master Affidavit before the search began. See id. at 1353-54. The district court credited the agents' testimony that agents [had been] instructed not to, and [had] made efforts not to, seize records that were outside the warrant's scope. R589 at 58. Portlock has not shown this finding to be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Travers, 233 F.3d 1327, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000) (We find nothing in the record that would indicate that these factual findings that the officers obtained the warrant in cooperation with the United States Attorney who advised them on the requirements for showing probable cause and conducted their search in a conscious effort to stay within its limits are clearly erroneous. (citation omitted)). Portlock contends that the seizure of his computers was without probable cause. Specifically, Portlock argues that the affidavit submitted to obtain the warrant order provided no fact-specific reason to believe there were computers in Portlock's office, or that his computers had been used to facilitate the commission of any criminal violation of Title 8 or 26. A warrant, and its corresponding search, violates the Fourth Amendment if it fails to specify the place to be searched and the items to be seized, or if it is issued by an official who is not neutral and detached, or if it is procured by a false statement made intentionally or recklessly, or if it is not supported by probable cause. United States Steel, LLC, v. Tieco, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275, 1290 (11th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). None of the foregoing occurred in this case. Here, the Master Affidavit describes Portlock as Maali's accountant, and one of Maali's tax returns had been found in the trash outside Portlock's office. While the Master Affidavit did not indicate that it was a computer-generated tax form, in reviewing the affidavit to ascertain whether it furnished probable cause for the warrant sought, the affidavit is given a common sense and realistic interpretation. See United States v. Maestas, 546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir.1977). Additionally, task force coordinator Stephen Thomas testified, that prior to the warrant application, he had entered Portlock's office and observed connected computers. The district court did not err in concluding that the allegations of the Master Affidavit were sufficient to provide probable cause for the seizure of computers from Portlock's accounting business. Khanani and Portlock also contend that the lack of a written search protocol required the district court to suppress all evidence agents seized as a result of the search of the defendants' computers. The testimony at the suppression hearing established that the agents attempted to identify computers that contained information that was responsive to the warrants and that they did not seize every computer that they encountered. Thereafter, a computer examiner eliminated files that were unlikely to contain material within the warrants' scope. The culling process winnowed down the files seized from approximately three million to approximately 270,000. FBI Agent Scott Skinner testified that agents used keyword searches, and if a document was opened and it wasn't... covered by the warrant, then it wasn't analyzed. R423 at 928, 944. Khanani and Portlock fail to cite any binding case law that would lead us to conclude the procedures used in this case infringed defendants' Fourth Amendment rights.