Opinion ID: 738948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specificity of the Warrants

Text: 32 All the Appellants contend that the search warrants do not pass constitutional muster because they were not sufficiently specific in describing the items and documents to be searched and seized. To determine whether a warrant lacks sufficient specificity, we must examine both the warrant's particularity and its breadth. United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 426 (9th Cir.1995). 33 In the present case, the three search warrants allowed the government agents to seize virtually every document. However, under the permeated with fraud doctrine a generalized seizure of business documents may be justified if the government establishes probable cause to believe that the entire business is merely a scheme to defraud or that all of the business's records are likely to evidence criminal activity. Id. at 427-28 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that the permeated with fraud doctrine should not apply in this case because the declaration of FBI Agent Sherry Thomas does not specifically state that fraud was pervasive. Appellants' contention is without merit. This court has never held that a declaration must actually use the words permeated with fraud to support a finding of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant under the permeated with fraud doctrine. Rather, it is enough that the supporting declaration makes a showing that a business was in fact permeated with fraud. See United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461, 1473 (9th Cir.1986). In this case, Agent Thomas described in adequate detail the evidence which led her to conclude that Appellants were operating a boiler room. Thomas's descriptions and conclusions provide a sufficient showing to satisfy the permeated with fraud doctrine.