U.S. v. Ganias: Second Circuit Limits Government’s Ability to Use Electronic Material Seized Beyond Scope of Warrant for Different Prosecution

by Dechert LLP
Contact

In a recent decision1 that provides important guidance in the developing law related to government seizure of electronic records in criminal investigations, on June 17, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the conviction of an accountant on personal tax evasion charges. The Second Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures prohibits the government from using electronic documents seized pursuant to a search warrant but beyond the scope of the warrant in future different criminal investigations. 

Background

The case arose when the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (Army CID) received a confidential tip alleging that a contractor hired to provide maintenance and security services to an Army facility had committed theft and fraud. The tipster stated that evidence of the criminal activity could be found in the offices of the contractor, Industrial Property Management (IPM), an affiliated company, American Boiler, and their accountant, Stavros M. Ganias. Based on this information, Army CID obtained a warrant to seize from Ganias’s offices: “All books, records, documents, materials, computer hardware and software and computer associated data relating to the business, financial and accounting operations of [IPM] and American Boiler….”2

In November 2003, pursuant to the warrant, agents from Army CID and its specialized Computer Crimes Investigative Unit copied the hard drives of three computers found in Ganias’s office, which included electronic files containing Ganias’s personal financial records that were beyond the scope of the warrant. Government investigators provided copies of the imaged hard drives to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its own review and analysis. 

By December 2004, about 13 months after the seizure of Ganias’s electronic data, the government investigators had isolated and extracted all of the computer files that were relevant to IPM and American Boiler. The investigators, however, did not purge the materials outside the scope of the warrant despite assurances allegedly provided to Ganias at the time of the search that they would delete these files from the imaged hard drives. 

During a proffer session approximately two and a half years later, when the government’s investigation expanded to include personal tax evasion by Ganias, government agents asked Ganias and his attorney for permission to access the personal computer files obtained from Ganias’s office during the initial search. Ganias did not respond and the government obtained a warrant to search the imaged hard drives. 

Following a jury trial, Ganias was convicted of two counts of tax evasion and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.

The Second Circuit Decision

In a strongly worded opinion, the Second Circuit vacated Ganias’s conviction, holding that “the Government violated Ganias’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and indefinitely retaining non-responsive computer records, and then searching them when it later developed probable cause.”3 Once the computer files relevant to the investigation of IPM and American Boiler had been extracted, absent some independent basis for retaining Ganias’s personal files, “the Government clearly violated Ganias’s Fourth Amendment rights by retaining the files for a prolonged period of time and then using them in a future criminal investigation.”4

Recognizing that modern investigations are now frequently based on electronic evidence, the Second Circuit acknowledged that “the ability of computers to store massive volumes of information presents logistical problems in the execution of search warrants.”5 Under the Fourth Amendment, originally intended to guard against the “general warrants” issued by the British Crown, search warrants must state with particularity the areas to be searched and the items to be seized. Thus, the court concluded, “[i]f the government could seize and retain the non-responsive electronic records indefinitely [to search later] whenever it later developed probable cause, every warrant to search for particular electronic data would become, in essence, a general warrant.”6

However, the Second Circuit stopped short of holding that the government was required to purge Ganias’s personal files once the responsive files had been culled and segregated. The government argued that returning or deleting non-responsive files would “compromise the remaining data that was responsive to the warrant, making it impossible to authenticate or use it in a criminal prosecution.”7 The court did not expressly reject the government’s argument. Instead, the decision left open the possibility that indefinite retention of an imaged hard drive may not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment if not used for any purpose other than to preserve the evidentiary chain of custody. 

Implications

With so many white-collar criminal prosecutions now based on electronic evidence, the law governing the techniques the government may use in obtaining such evidence is still developing. When executing search warrants, investigators, as they did in the Ganias case, often make wholesale copies of entire hard drives and, in doing so, undoubtedly obtain material that is beyond the scope of the warrant. This practice is akin to the government seizing entire file cabinets of paper records from an office, even when a warrant only permits them to seize records relevant to the criminal investigation that was the basis for the warrant. The law would not permit the government to retain paper records that were beyond the scope of the warrant. Now, the Ganias case demonstrates that while the courts will be sensitive to factors that distinguish electronic records from paper records, such as the need to preserve the electronic chain of custody, they will not permit the government to keep electronic files seized beyond the scope of the warrant indefinitely and then use them years after they were seized to support a separate criminal investigation.

1

 
U.S. v. Ganias, No. 12-240-cr (2d Cir. June 17, 2014).

2

 
Ganias, slip op. at 5. 

3

 
Id. at 37.

4

 
Id. at 29.

5

 
Id. at 22.

6

 
Id. at 31.

7

 
Id. at 32.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!