U.S. v. Riley
Decision Date | 22 June 1990 |
Docket Number | D,No. 575,575 |
Citation | U.S. v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841 (2nd Cir. 1990) |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. William RILEY, Defendant-Appellee, Norman Burnett, Jeffrey Sizemore, Vincent Mazza, Defendants. ocket 89-1387. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Thomas D. Anderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Burlington, Vt. (George J. Terwilliger, III, U.S. Atty., David J. Kirby, Chief, Criminal Div., Burlington, Vt., on the brief), for appellant.
Stephen Stein, Las Vegas, Nev. (David Z. Chesnoff, Las Vegas, Nev., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, and WEINSTEIN, District Judge.*
The United States appeals from the August 1, 1989, order of the District Court for the District of Vermont(Franklin S. Billings, Jr., Chief Judge), suppressing items seized pursuant to two search warrants.See18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731(1988).The warrants, issued by a magistrate, authorized searches of the home of defendantWilliam Riley and of a storage locker that Riley had rented.Among the items suppressed were financial records, firearms, and a rental agreement for the storage locker, all seized from the residence, and three kilograms of cocaine, seized from the storage locker.The District Court held the residence warrant partially unsupported by probable cause and insufficiently particularized, and the locker warrant unsupported by probable cause and tainted as a product of the invalid residence search.We reverse.
Riley, a Vermont resident, and Vincent Mazza, a Florida resident, had been the subjects of a narcotics investigation since September 1988.Based on evidence from informants, surveillance, telephone toll records, and court-authorized wiretaps, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration determined that Riley and Mazza had previously brought multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine into Vermont and were planning a 1,200 pound marijuana deal.In December, Riley and Mazza were arrested in a Vermont hotel room; in plain view was a large amount of money paid by Riley for the first 200 pounds of the planned marijuana shipment.
At the time of Riley's arrest, agents applied for a warrant to search his home in Underhill, Vermont.In a detailed 25-page affidavit, a DEA agent recounted the investigation of Riley and Mazza, including information that in August 1988 Mazza had sold 20 kilograms of cocaine to contacts in Vermont, including Riley, that in September and October Riley had negotiated with Mazza for an additional 30 to 50 kilograms of cocaine, and that in December Riley had received a large quantity of marijuana from Mazza.The affidavit also reported that in connection with the recent marijuana shipment, Riley received an out-of-state rental vehicle from Mazza, drove it to his home in Underhill, Vermont, and later the same night returned the vehicle, along with a cash payment, to Mazza's hotel.In addition to facts specific to the Riley/Mazza investigation, the affidavit also recounted the agent's unsurprising knowledge that drug traffickers often maintain records of their transactions, launder the proceeds of drug transactions, and secrete drugs, drug proceeds, drug records, and firearms at their homes and stash houses.
and the following items, which were deemed insufficiently particularized by the District Court:
records of the distribution of cocaine including records of distribution made and/or payments given or received, the investment of proceeds of drug trafficking in tangible or intangible objects and things, including but not limited to, bank records, brokerage house records, business records, safety deposit box keys or records and other items that constitute evidence of the offenses of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of the same[.]
Upon executing the warrant, agents found 36 pounds of marijuana, firearms, and an agreement between Riley and a Burlington, Vermont, storage company for rental of a storage locker.The agents also found 96 pounds of marijuana in the rental car that Riley had received from Mazza.The agents then applied to the magistrate for a warrant to search the storage locker.The affidavit in support of this warrant incorporated the allegations of the first affidavit and added the discovery of the marijuana and the locker rental agreement, and information that Riley had been at the locker three weeks prior to his arrest.The magistrate issued a warrant to search the locker and to seize items described in the same language as that used in the warrant for the search of Riley's home.A search of the locker resulted in the seizure of three kilograms of cocaine.
District Court Ruling.With respect to the home warrant, the District Court ruled that there was no probable cause to believe that firearms were located in Riley's home.The Court also ruled that part of the language of the warrant was insufficiently particularized, especially the phrase authorizing seizure of "evidence of ... the investment of proceeds of drug trafficking in tangible or intangible objects and things, including but not limited to, bank records, brokerage house records, business records[, and] safety deposit box keys and records."However, the Court found that some of the language describing items to be seized was sufficiently particularized, including the phrase "other items that constitute evidence of the offenses of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of the same."Concluding that the defects in the warrant should have been apparent to a reasonably well-trained agent, the Court ruled that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for seizures pursuant to warrants was unavailable, seeUnited States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677(1984), and suppressed the firearms and the storage locker rental agreement.
With respect to the storage locker warrant, the Court ruled that seizure of the rental agreement was not called for by any valid portion of the home warrant, that the storage locker warrant was therefore the fruit of the partially invalid search of the home, that, even with the rental agreement, there was no probable cause to believe that drugs were located in the storage locker, and that the good-faith exception of Leon was inapplicable to this search as well.The Court therefore suppressed the cocaine found in the locker.
On appeal, the Government does not seek review of the conclusion that probable cause to search the home for firearms was lacking, but defends seizure of the firearms from the home on the basis of the Leon good-faith exception and on the further ground that the firearms were in plain view.To support seizure of the cocaine from the storage locker, the Government contends that the rental agreement was in plain view, that the "records" language of the home warrant was sufficiently particularized, that there was probable cause to believe that cocaine was in the storage locker, and that the Leon good-faith exception is applicable.
We consider first the particularity issue, to which the parties have devoted primary attention.As the District Court noted, the particularity requirement guards against general searches that leave to the unguided discretion of the officers executing the warrant the decision as to what items may be seized.SeeAndresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2748, 49 L.Ed.2d 627(1976);Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 195-96, 48 S.Ct. 74, 75-76, 72 L.Ed. 231(1927).
In considering the District Court's application of this requirement to the language of the warrant to search Riley's home, we encounter two puzzling aspects of the Court's opinion.First, the Court appears to have misread one portion of the warrant.Focusing on the phrase authorizing seizure of "records of ... the investment of proceeds of drug trafficking in tangible or intangible objects and things,"1the Court concluded that this phrase left the officers free to search through all of Riley's papers "trying to determine--without any guidance--whether or not any particular paper constitutes 'tangible or intangible' evidence of the investment of drug proceeds."Whatever the uncertainty confronting the officers, a matter we consider below, it did not concern determining whether a piece of paper constitutes tangible or intangible evidence of invested drug proceeds.The warrant did not call for seizure of tangible or intangible evidence of investments; the phrase "tangible or intangible" described the objects or things in which the drug proceeds were invested.
Second, the Court's view that the language describing investment proceeds records was too broad appears unrelated to its conclusion that the storage locker rental agreement was improperly seized.This agreement was within a category of items that the Court ruled was sufficiently described in the warrant--namely, "items that constitute evidence of the offenses of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances."With respect to a person who has negotiated for the acquisition of, and accepted delivery of large quantities of narcotics, a rental agreement for a storage locker in a nearby town is evidence of a conspiracy to distribute drugs.
In any event, we disagree with the District Court that the warrant's description of the category of records that could be seized was insufficiently particularized.In upholding broadly worded categories of items available for seizure, we have noted that the language of a warrant is to be construed in...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
United States v. Nelson
...search warrant, a judge must find that probable cause exists to believe (1) that a crime has been committed and (2) that evidence ofthe crime will be found in the premises to be searched. See e.g.,
United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1990). "The task of the issuing [judge] is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances . . . before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there... -
U.S. v. Hunter
...part by an illustrative list of seizable items, the Fourth Amendment is not violated because the officers executing the warrant must exercise some minimal judgment as to whether a particular document falls within the described category."
Id.Thus in this case Sections II and III of Attachment C gave a list of examples of the particular records sought, and Section I restricted its scope to documents concerning financial transactions. In addition, each of these sections identified theintrusions upon privacy," id., records searches "permit[] officers to examine many papers," in recognition of "the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked `[crime] records.'" United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir.1990). Money laundering is the sort of crime which may involve copious documents. A warrant seeking records relating to money laundering transactions will necessarily be wide-ranging but must not be impermissiblyidentified the records by time period and by the individual, entity, or property involved. These parameters more than adequately circumscribed the executing officers' discretion, and satisfied the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See id., (no Fourth Amendment violation where category of seizable records was adequately described and accompanied by illustrative list); United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 546 (2d Cir.1984) (no general warrant where terms authorized seizure... -
United States v. Folks
...delineated in part by an illustrative list of seizable items, the Fourth Amendment is not violated because the officers executing the warrant must exercise some minimal judgment as to whether a particular document falls within the described category."
Id. at 845. Folks's argument that the Burlington Residence warrant specifically omitted computers is untenable. The search warrant authorized police to seize any and all items that could be evidence of violations of drug trafficking includingquotation marks omitted). "In upholding broadly worded categories of items available for 2 seizure, we have noted that the language of a warrant is to be construed in light of an illustrative list of seizable items." United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir. 1990). And "[o]nce a category of seizable papers has been adequately described, with the description delineated in part by an illustrative list of seizable items, the Fourth Amendment is not violated because the officers executing... -
U.S. v. Hall
...potential criminal activity does not violate the Fourth Amendment, particularly when it would be impractical and intrusive for police to sift through many documents in order to segregate those outside the warrant. See
United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir.1990)("[A]llowing some latitude in this regard simply recognizes the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked drug records.' "); United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374,...
-
4.2.3
...be seized (numbers, text messages, picture messages, etc.) by their relation to the designated crime (the attempted kidnapping.).” The court cited United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2013) and United States v. Riley,
906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1990) (allowing some latitude with respect to examining records to determine if they fall with those described in the warrant simply recognizes the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactionsexceeded his authority to search when he took the ledger to federal agent so that he could inspect its contents; thus, it was error to fail to suppress evidence of ledger in prosecution for tax evasion); United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1990) (allowing some latitude with respect to examining records to determine if they fall within those described in the warrant simply recognizes the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked... -
4.2.2
...to be seized (numbers, text messages, picture messages, etc.) by their relation to the designated crime (the attempted kidnapping.).” Court cited United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2013) and United States v. Riley,
906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1990) (allowing some latitude with respect to examining records to determine if they fall with those described in the warrant simply recognizes the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactions... -
Swinging for the fences: how Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. missed the ball on digital searches.
...DISCIPLINARY CONVERSATION 152-72 (Katherine Strandburg & Daniela Stan Raicu eds., 2006). Popular culture has begun to reflect concerns regarding biometric privacy. See, e.g., MINORITY REPORT (Amblin Entertainment 2002). (252) See U.S. v. Riley,
906 F.2d 841, 853-55 (2d Cir. 1990) (Weinstein, J. dissenting) (listing technological improvements in forensic science and expressing concern about the Fourth Amendment implications of their aggregated Vincent Angermeier, J.D. Candidate, Northwestern...