United States: En Banc Second Circuit Reinstates Conviction Despite Government Retention Of ESI

On May 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, in United States v. Ganias, 2016 WL 3031285, _ F.3d _ (2d Cir. May 27, 2016), reversed the 2014 decision of a three-judge panel and held that a search of electronically stored information, which had been collected under a prior search warrant executed more than two years earlier, and the results of which — including nonresponsive data — had been retained by law enforcement throughout that time, was made in good faith and that the evidence therefrom was properly not suppressed. The en banc panel did not determine whether the government's actions violated the Fourth Amendment, an issue considered and decided adversely to the government by the three-judge panel in 2014. The key conduct at issue concerned the government's seizure of a defendant's hard drive with respect to a fraud investigation against other individuals and companies for whom the defendant served as an accountant. After retaining nonresponsive data from the hard drives for two and a half years, the government conducted a new search of the data for information concerning Stavros Ganias, the accountant, that ultimately led to his tax evasion conviction. The decision was co-authored by Circuit Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Gerald E. Lynch. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who wrote the panel decision reversing the district court in 2014, dissented from the en banc decision.1

In 2003, the Criminal Investigative Command of the Army obtained search warrants for two companies on the basis of alleged fraudulent billing. One of these pertained to Ganias, an accountant for one of these companies. Agents copied the drives of his computers, which included files beyond the scope of the warrant, for later review. Investigators maintained Ganias' electronically stored information ("ESI") on a mirror image set of DVDs and began their review 13 months after the initial seizure.  By this time, the government had segregated relevant ESI, but did not purge or destroy the remaining non-relevant ESI. Approximately 20 months after the initial search warrant was executed, the government began to suspect Ganias of criminal tax violations and expanded its investigation. The government obtained a second search warrant to search preserved ESI collected under the initial warrant, which, by this time, the government had possessed for nearly two and a half years. Ganias was indicted and sought to suppress the ESI seized under the initial warrant. The trial court denied the motion and Ganias was convicted.

The Second Circuit panel, in a decision by Judge Chin, held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit officials executing a warrant for the seizure of particular data on a computer to indefinitely retain every file on that computer for use in future criminal investigations. He reasoned that this would constitute an interference in Ganias' possessory rights in the files and constitute a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. See United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014). Judge Chin wrote that the Fourth Amendment afforded modern computer files the same protections as traditional materials (including 18th century "papers"), noting that in traditional non-ESI seizures the government is rarely allowed to remove all of an individual's papers for later review because that would violate the mandate of the warrant, which must state with particularity the areas to be searched and the items to be seized. A majority of the three-judge panel reversed the trial court ruling on the suppression motion, holding that the good faith exception did not apply and the search of the unreasonably and impermissibly retained ESI warranted the application of the exclusionary rule.

The 13 active judges of the Second Circuit elected to rehear the case en banc without a request from either party to do so. See United States v. Ganias, 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015). The court held that the agents acted in good faith, and therefore it was not necessary to decide whether the Fourth Amendment was violated. 2016 WL 3031285. The court did however consider the Fourth Amendment issues in order to "make some observations bearing on the reasonableness of the agents' actions, both to illustrate the complexity of the questions in this significant Fourth Amendment context and to highlight the importance of careful consideration of the technical contours of digital search and seizure for future cases." The court was generally receptive to the idea that defendants have the same expectations of privacy for digital records as they do for physical files, but also noted the logistical challenges in the preservation of digital evidence and the benefits of keeping an entire set of the defendants' data, including to protect the interests of the defendant. In that regard, the panel noted that ESI is not always stored in one place, but rather that "word documents and spreadsheets such as those the Government searched in this case ... are in fact 'fragmented' on a storage device, potentially across physical locations." Similarly, they observed that metadata and other temporary files may be stored in other locations across the computer systems, adding further support for removal or imaging of an entire hard drive prior to review for responsive ESI. Despite the ultimate conclusion, the panel stated that they did not

mean to thereby minimize or ignore the privacy concerns implicated when a hard drive or forensic mirror is retained, even pursuant to a warrant. The seizure of a computer hard drive, and its subsequent retention by the government, can give the government possession of a vast trove of personal information about the person to whom the drive belongs, much of which may be entirely irrelevant to the criminal investigation that led to the seizure. Indeed, another weakness of the file cabinet analogy is that no file cabinet has the capacity to contain as much information as the typical computer hard drive.

However, the court noted that "parties with an interest in retained storage media are not without recourse." A defendant can make a motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), something Ganias did not do.

Ultimately, the court found that the government acted in good faith because the agents provided sufficient information in their affidavits, disclosing the relevant facts concerning the data retention, when they sought the second warrant; they had no reason to believe that the retention was unconstitutional, and they acted reasonably throughout the investigation.

Judges Raymond Lohier Jr. and Rosemary Pooler concurred in the result but did not join the court's discussion of the Fourth Amendment issues.

Judge Chin, in a lengthy dissent highlighting many of the themes of the panel decision, characterized the government position as "when computers are involved, it is free to overseize files for its convenience, including files outside the scope of a warrant, and to retain them until it has found a reason for their use." Judge Chin argued the position that "[o]nce responsive files are segregated or extracted, the retention of nonresponsive documents is no longer reasonable, and the government is obligated, in my view, to return or dispose of the nonresponsive fields within a reasonable period of time."

While the Second Circuit en banc ruling did roll back the previous influential panel decision, the case remains important. Although the en banc court did not identify a Fourth Amendment violation and did not suppress the search, the decision, by thoroughly considering these claims, sets the stage for future suppression arguments that the government may not, without limitation, overseize data for one purpose, retain it indefinitely and use it for another purpose — and then rely on a subsequent "good faith" defense. At minimum, the government is now on notice that it may face scrutiny for this type of conduct, and both the prosecution and defense may now become more mindful of data management policies and practices. In particular, practitioners should keep in mind the strategic utility of an early request under Rule 41 for the return of nonresponsive ESI taken in any search.

Footnote

*Kramer Levin filed an amicus brief in support of an affirmance of the panel decision in this matter on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Summer Associate Joseph Jampel assisted with this client alert.

1 Judge Chin was joined by Circuit Judge Peter Hall and Judge Jane Restani of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation, on the original panel. In the panel decision, Judge Hall concurred with respect to the Fourth Amendment violation but dissented with respect to the suppression finding. Judge Restani was not eligible to participate in the en banc decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions