Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FIDELIS NEGBENEBOR, Defendant - Appellant.
MEMORANDUM*
1. An affidavit is deemed to be incorporated into a warrant “if (1) the warrant expressly incorporated the affidavit by reference and (2) the affidavit either is attached physically to the warrant or at least accompanies the warrant while agents execute the search.” United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 568 F.3d 684, 699 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If incorporated, “we evaluate the affidavit and the warrant as a whole, allowing the affidavit to cure any deficiencies in the naked warrant.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the search warrant here referenced Attachment B, which described the property to be seized, and copies of Attachment B were present during the search, it follows that Attachment B was incorporated into the warrant.
2. Negbenebor claims that, even if incorporated into the warrant, Attachment B doesn't cure the warrant's deficiencies because it is overbroad. “[T]he level of detail necessary in a warrant is related to the particular circumstances and the nature of the evidence sought.” United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 716 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The proper metric of sufficient specificity is whether it was reasonable to provide a more specific description of the items at that juncture of the investigation.”). Attachment B properly described the categories of items to be seized in light of the sophisticated identity theft scheme that Negbenebor was a part of. The warrant wasn't overbroad.
3. Negbenebor also claims that the agents serving the warrant didn't comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. Assuming this argument wasn't waived, Negbenebor failed to show that the agents serving the warrant “intentional[ly] and deliberate[ly] disregard[ed]” Rule 41. United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205, 1213 (9th Cir. 2005). The agents could have reasonably believed that they couldn't serve Attachment B because it was sealed.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-50531
Decided: September 14, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)