Opinion ID: 712827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence Seized Under the Search Warrants

Text: 66 Thierman contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant his motion to suppress on the grounds these two search warrants were overbroad. Thierman does not name exactly what evidence he objects to, but argues any evidence admitted which was gathered pursuant to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the search warrants should be suppressed. The district court denied Thierman's motion to suppress, and this court reviews de novo.
67 Thierman objects to items 1, 5, and 7 because they use the term unapproved pharmaceutical drugs while the affidavit provides probable cause only for the narrow category of GHB. Whether or not the warrant's use of the term unapproved pharmaceutical drug, rather than GHB specifically, created a want of probable cause to support the warrant is a close question. However, under U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) and U.S. v. Crozier, 777 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1985), reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 (1984), this court ordinarily will not overturn the district court's decision so long as the warrants were not so facially overbroad as to preclude reasonable reliance by the executing officers. U.S. v. Michaelian, 803 F.2d 1042 (9th Cir.1986). Given the close nature of the overbreadth determination, the warrants clearly are not so overbroad as to warrant reversal under Leon. 68 In arguing the warrant is overbroad, Thierman relies on Storage Spaces Designated Nos. 8 & 49, 777 F.2d 1363, wherein the court reviewed a warrant which allowed for the seizure of all items which are evidence of violation of, or in violation of, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) and (k). Id. at 1369. The court stated that normally such a broad allowance would not be valid. Id. Nonetheless it upheld the warrant because several items immediately preceding the broad allowance delineated specifically what drugs were to be seized, both by their technical and street names. The court believed the more specific items provided the necessary limiting factor for the broader item. 69 Here, in contrast, not a single drug is named. Rather the warrant simply uses the term unapproved pharmaceutical drug. While the government argues that the affidavit provides support for this broader category, the affidavit does not mention any drug other than GHB, and the failure of the government to account for why it could not have limited the warrant to GHB alone is explainable only by the fact that this prosecution was carried forward by a regulatory agency and not by the United States Attorney. Nonetheless, under Leon, 468 U.S. 897, no reversible error is apparent.
70 Thierman challenges the evidence gathered under items 2, 3, and 4 as overbroad as well. We do not review items 2 and 3, (narcotics and drug related monies respectively), as it appears no evidence gathered pursuant to these items was admitted at trial. Even if these items were overbroad, the remedy would simply be to exclude them, not invalidate the whole warrant. U.S. v. Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d 649, 654 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 977 (1984). 71 Item 4 describes a whole list of documents to be seized, ranging from books to bank records, which evidence the obtaining, secreting, transfer, concealment and/or expenditure of money including computerized records. Thierman relies on U.S. v. Stubbs, 873 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.1989) in arguing that this description is overbroad. In Stubbs, the court found an item, similar to that here, overbroad because of the absence of probable cause to seize all documents in Stubbs office. However, unlike this case, the defendant in Stubbs ran a legitimate business in the same building as his illegitimate one. Moreover, the investigators had the cooperation of many of Stubbs employees who could have asisted in differentiating between the legitimate and illegitimate documents. Id. 72 In this case there was no indication of a legitimate business at the warrant sites. This court found this distinction critical in U.S. v. Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1003 (1990), where the court upheld a warrant for all records because there was no evidence that the government could have separated legitimate from illegitimate records. The district court's denial of Thierman's motion to suppress was free from reversible error. 73