United States v. Leoncio L. Diaz, A/K/A Leonel Diaz
841 F.2d 1 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that is later found to be overbroad as to its time frame will not be suppressed if the executing officers' reliance on the magistrate's authorization was objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- Maria Novoa and Eloy Novoa, employees at Isla Rica Sales, Inc. (IRSI), a produce wholesaler, contacted the FBI to report a fraudulent scheme.
- The Novoas stated that IRSI was bribing a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector, Alfredo Matos.
- The scheme involved Matos falsely certifying that produce was spoiled and had been dumped, allowing IRSI to file fraudulent claims with its insurers.
- IRSI would then secretly sell the produce that was supposedly dumped and use the cash proceeds to, among other things, pay bribes to Matos.
- Eloy Novoa provided an FBI agent with a "lot" folder showing that 282 cartons of lettuce were certified as dumped by Matos, yet 743 cartons from that same lot had been sold.
- The Novoas also showed the agent cash tickets documenting disbursements from a cash box to "Matos, Inspector."
- The Novoas informed the FBI agent that this fraudulent scheme had been ongoing since IRSI first began operations in February 1983, though this fact was not included in the agent's affidavit for the search warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- After an FBI search and seizure of business records, Leoncio and Marta Diaz, Jorge Cabrera, and Alfredo Matos were charged with wire fraud and bribery.
- The defendants filed motions to suppress the seized evidence in the United States District Court, arguing the warrant was invalid.
- A federal magistrate reviewed the motions and recommended that the evidence be suppressed.
- The District Court adopted the recommendation and granted the defendants' motions to suppress, finding the warrant lacked sufficient particularity and probable cause.
- The government, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search warrant authorizing the seizure of all of a company's business records since its inception violate the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement when the supporting affidavit only provides specific evidence of wrongdoing from a later date?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Circuit Judge.
Yes, a search warrant that authorizes the seizure of records from a time period for which there is no stated probable cause in the affidavit is overbroad and violates the Fourth Amendment; however, the resulting evidence is not subject to suppression if the executing officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith reliance on the warrant. The court found that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause to seize the company's bank account records, as it indicated the scheme was entirely cash-based, and ordered those specific records suppressed under the doctrine of severability. Regarding the warrant's time frame, which extended back to the company's inception despite the affidavit's evidence only dating back to October 1983, the court found it was overbroad. Nevertheless, the court applied the good faith exception from United States v. Leon, holding that the warrant was not so 'facially deficient' that a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal. The officer's reasonable belief, the complexity of the fraud, and the magistrate's approval all supported the conclusion that the officer acted in good faith.
Analysis:
This case provides a key application of the good faith exception established in United States v. Leon, particularly in the context of complex white-collar crime investigations. It illustrates that a warrant can be found partially invalid (as to certain categories of documents) and overbroad (as to time) without requiring total suppression of the evidence. The court's willingness to apply the good faith exception to the overbroad time frame demonstrates judicial recognition of the practical difficulties officers face in drafting perfectly particularized warrants for pervasive fraudulent schemes involving voluminous business records. This decision reinforces the doctrine of severability, allowing courts to suppress only the portions of evidence seized without probable cause, and solidifies the high bar for finding an officer's reliance on a magistrate-issued warrant to be objectively unreasonable.
