Opinion ID: 714869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warehouse and Galleria

Text: 20 The Shayestehs argue that the search warrant for their store and warehouse was overbroad. The warrant allowed seizure of all 857 Iranian-origin rugs (worth several million dollars) in the warehouse and all documents relating to the purchase, importation, and distribution of Iranian-origin carpets. The Shayestehs argue that the warrant should have been limited to seizure of the approximately 200 carpets, 3 and their accompanying documents, that had been marked to identify them as part of the undercover smuggling operations. 21 We review de novo a finding that a warrant was sufficiently specific. United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir.1986). Three factors determine whether a warrant is overbroad when it allows seizure of all of a class of items: 22 (1) whether probable cause exists to seize all items of a particular type described in the warrant; (2) whether the warrant sets out objective standards by which executing officers can differentiate items subject to seizure from those which are not; and (3) whether the government was able to describe the items more particularly in light of the information available to it at the time the warrant was issued. 23 Id. (internal citations omitted). 24 This warrant was appropriately limited according to the Spilotro requirements. First, there was probable cause to seize all the Iranian carpets. 4 The affidavit alleged a series of three smuggling transactions and referred to interviews, document review and other evidence. It described other non-undercover smuggling operations such as the trip by Rebecca Tehrani and an attempt by Kamran and Noushfar, where the smuggled rugs would not have been marked with special thread. The affidavit listed hundreds of carpets known to have been imported by Rabie or the Shayestehs into Vancouver where the Shayestehs had no store. Considering these facts and giving a common sense reading, we conclude that there was probable cause to seize all Iranian-origin rugs found in the warehouse. 25 Second, the warrant gave objective standards to distinguish the items to be seized and was limited specifically to carpets originating in Iran and accompanying documents. Cf. United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 425, 427-28 (9th Cir.1995) (finding overbreadth where warrant set no time limits and allowed seizure of essentially all of the business's records, computer hardware and software, files, ledgers, and invoices). The government had two experts in carpet identification present during the search to avoid a taking of non-Iranian products. Cf. Center Art, 875 F.2d at 749-50. 26 Third, it was not necessary for the government to be more specific in its description of the carpets. There was probable cause to seize all Iranian carpets. See also United States v. Holzman, 871 F.2d 1496, 1509 (9th Cir.1989) (upholding warrant for any cash, jewelry, bonds and notes obtained through this fraud scheme.). 27 We conclude that the warrant was not overbroad.