United States v. Richard J. Leary, and F.L. Kleinberg & Co.
846 F.2d 592, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 5755 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant that authorizes the seizure of a broad category of business records 'relating to' violations of general federal statutes, without further limitations based on information known to the government, violates the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The good faith exception does not apply when a warrant is so facially deficient in its particularity that a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal.
Facts:
- F.L. Kleinberg Company ('Kleinberg') was an export company where Richard J. Leary served as a vice-president.
- Kleinberg purchased a specific piece of equipment, a Micro-tel Precision Attenuation Measurement Receiver.
- Without the required export license, Kleinberg allegedly attempted to illegally export the receiver to the People's Republic of China.
- The alleged scheme involved routing the shipment through a series of 'front' companies located in Hong Kong.
- The company maintained an 'open door' policy, which invited government agents to visit and request files or information as needed.
Procedural Posture:
- Federal customs agent John Juhasz obtained a search warrant for the Kleinberg offices based on an affidavit detailing a single transaction.
- On August 23, 1984, federal agents executed the warrant and seized twenty boxes of business records.
- Kleinberg and Leary were indicted in the U.S. District Court for conspiracy to violate the Export Administration Act.
- The defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search.
- The district court granted the motion, finding the warrant was facially overbroad and lacked probable cause, and that the good faith exception did not apply.
- The government, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Kleinberg and Leary were the appellees.
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 that authorizes the seizure of a broad category of business records 'relating to the purchase, sale and illegal exportation of materials in violation of' general federal export statutes, without referencing the specific crime, items, or time frame detailed in the supporting affidavit, violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephen H. Anderson
Yes, the search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The warrant is facially overbroad because it fails to provide any meaningful limitation on the executing officers' discretion. Merely referencing broad federal statutes like the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act is insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement, as it does not guide officers in distinguishing between seizable and non-seizable items. The warrant's list of document types was a generic 'laundry list' that encompassed nearly every record in a modern export company. The government possessed specific information in its affidavit—regarding a single transaction, a particular product, specific companies, and countries—that it failed to incorporate into the warrant to narrow its scope. Furthermore, the warrant's scope far exceeded the probable cause established in the affidavit, which only supported a search for documents related to the single Micro-tel transaction. Finally, the good faith exception established in United States v. Leon is inapplicable because the warrant was 'so facially deficient' in its lack of particularity that a reasonably well-trained officer could not have presumed it to be valid.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement in the context of searches for business records, making it clear that generic descriptions and unadorned references to broad criminal statutes are unconstitutional. It establishes that the government must tailor a warrant's scope to the probable cause it possesses, including specific details about the alleged crime whenever possible. The decision also places a crucial limit on the Leon good faith exception, holding that an officer's reliance on a warrant that is so facially deficient in particularity is objectively unreasonable. This precedent prevents the government from conducting 'general searches' or 'fishing expeditions' through a business's entire collection of records.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Richard J. Leary, and F.L. Kleinberg & Co.