United States Ninth Circuit

In a prosecution for health care fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, a district court order suppressing evidence seized during a search of defendants' place of business is affirmed in part and reversed in part upon interlocutory appeal where: 1) an individual challenging a search of workplace areas beyond his own internal office must generally show some personal connection to the places searched and the materials seized; 2) the district court did not adequately develop the record; 3) the search warrant at issue properly incorporated an affidavit; 4) particularity and overbreadth remain two distinct parts of the evaluation of a warrant for Fourth Amendment purposes; 5) several of the categories enumerated in the warrant were not overbroad; 6) the good faith exception did not apply; and 7) the district court should have applied the doctrine of severance rather than suppressing all evidence seized under the warrant.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/13/2008
• Decided 01/27/2009
• Published 01/27/2009

Judges

• O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:, Before:  DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert L. Ellman, Appellate Chief, Office of the United States Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant and filed the briefs;  Gregory A. Brower, United States Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Steven W. Myhre, First Assistant United States Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Michael Chu, Peter S. Levitt, Elizabeth A. Olson, Crane Pomerantz, and Roger W. Wenthe, Assistant United States Attorneys, Las Vegas, NV, were on the briefs.


• For Appellees:
  
• Lance Etcheverry, Attorney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, argued the cause for the defendants-appellees;  C. Stanley Hunterton, Hunterton & Associates, Thomas J. Nolan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Mark S. Hardiman, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., filed the brief.