Opinion ID: 3052223
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: receivers with what appears to be their boxkey

Text: identification numbers written on their bottoms in black magic marker; 2. receivers with their boxkey identification numbers written on their bottoms in black magic marker, and scratches, marks and mars on their J-TAG ports, which is consistent with using a J- TAG interface device to extract a boxkey identi- fication number; 3. receivers with their boxkey identification numbers written on their bottoms in black magic marker, and scratches, marks and mars on their J-TAG ports, and a history of unauthorized use; and 4. one receiver with only scratches, marks and mars on its J-TAG port. 7812 UNITED STATES v. HARRELL Clifford also issued reports on the seized smartcards, computer hard drives, and other miscellaneous items. These miscellaneous items include: 1. digital locks (used to evade electronic countermeasures sent by satellite service providers to combat piracy); 2. satellite finders (used to identify locations with optimum signal reception); 3. J-TAG interface devices (used to transfer software between receivers and personal comput- ers); 4. Sombreros (used to extract boxkey identification numbers from receivers); 5. memory erasers (used to erase smartcard memo- ries); 6. ATMEGA 128 devices (used in lieu of smart- cards to pirate satellite signals); and 7. audio-video replicator programmers (used to load piracy software onto various piracy devices). Finally, Clifford issued reports on software downloads for piracy devices, instructions on how to use piracy devices, instructions on the piracy of DISH Network smartcards, instructions on the installation of digital locks, and instructions on the extraction of boxkey identification numbers. The Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department assigned numbers to each item of seized property, which are reflected in its Department Evidence Report (e.g., 001CS, 001SW, 002CS, etc.). When an item number encompassed multiple items of UNITED STATES v. HARRELL 7813 property, Clifford then assigned items or groups of items different item numbers, which are reflected in his analysis reports (e.g., 24E, 24G, 24I, etc.). Throughout the district court proceedings, the parties referred to items by the item numbers assigned to them in the Department Evidence Report, and when possible we do the same. However, because Harrell also refers to specific items by Clifford’s item numbers, we use those identifying numbers as well, when necessary. After the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department transferred Harrell’s property to the FBI, a grand jury returned a fourcount indictment against Harrell, charging various violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 and seeking criminal forfeiture of the seized property.1 After the district court granted Harrell’s motion to suppress the seized evidence, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. 1 Section 1029 states, in pertinent part:
... (7) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a telecommunications instrument that has been modified or altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services; ... (9) knowingly uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to insert or modify telecommunication identifying information associated with or contained in a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain telecommunications service without authorization; ... shall, if the offense affects interstate or foreign commerce, be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. 7814 UNITED STATES v. HARRELL Harrell then filed the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), seeking return of the property seized from his residence.2 Harrell’s motion included as exhibits the Siskiyou Sheriff’s Department Evidence Report and all of Clifford’s reports. In his motion, Harrell states that he does not seek the return of any property modified to permit the owner to illegally view encrypted television signals, nor does he seek the return of any discs with downloaded instructions explaining how to modify equipment to permit the illegal viewing of encrypted television signals. In response, the government filed two declarations from Donald Toy (Toy), Clifford’s supervisor and the manager of the Signal Integrity Division, which inspected and analyzed the seized property. The government supported its response with Toy’s declarations because at the time Harrell filed his Rule 41(g) motion, Clifford was no longer employed by DISH Network. Toy concluded that the DISH Network receivers and smartcards in Harrell’s possession were “modified to receive unauthorized programming,” and that Harrell also possessed pirating hardware and software. The parties stipulated to submit Harrell’s motion on the papers, and Harrell waived any objection to the government’s reliance on Toy’s declarations. After noting that the “parties agree that certain property should be returned to [Harrell],” the court specifically discussed the receivers contested by the parties. The court stated: 2 Rule 41 states, in pertinent part: (g) Motion to Return Property. 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. UNITED STATES v. HARRELL 7815 Mr. Toy based his opinion on the fact that the box- keys of the receivers were written on the bottom of the units, there was [sic] scratches and marks on the J-TAG ports of the receivers, and “information from the nonvolatile memories indicate that [the] receivers have been receiving authorized programming.” . . . Given that [Harrell] does not object to Mr. Toy’s declaration, the court accepts Mr. Toy’s conclusion that the receivers have been illegally modified and are capable of receiving unauthorized programing. No. CR. S-05-475 LKK, 2007 WL 1279505, at  2 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2007) (second alteration in original). Therefore, the court concluded, the contested receivers constitute contraband per se under section 1029(a)(7). The court then discussed the miscellaneous seized items. Other than certain cables and adaptors, which the government agrees to return, the court again accepted Toy’s conclusions as fact, construed items 020SW and 021SW as capable of pirating and/or having been illegally altered, and found that they should not be returned to Harrell. In sum, the court ordered: [Harrell’s] Motion for Return of Property is granted in part and denied in part. The government shall return to [Harrell] the following items: blue cards (item # 032SW), hard drives (item # s 002CS & 003CS), remote control (item # 10SW), unmodified receivers (item # s 013SW, 014SW, 025SW- 031SW), paperwork (item # 018SW)[,] computer (item # 034SW), and various cables and adaptors associated with items # 020SW and # 022SW. The government shall retain the remainder of the property in question. Id. at . This appeal followed.