United States v. Burch, 5:20-cr-00117

Steven Burch, an SSA-disabled beneficiary since 2010, was alleged to have performed substantial unpaid work for his girlfriend Julia Carter’s business (J.B. Fitz), which the government contends made him ineligible for SSDI.
On June 15, 2017, NCSBI CDIU agents used a fabricated identity-theft ruse to gain unannounced entry to Burch’s home and recorded video (no audio) of an interview with Burch and Carter.
On July 25, 2017, Burch attended an SSA interview accompanied by NCSBI agents; he was told agents were “gathering information” and (he contends) discouraged from contacting counsel.
After administrative proceedings, SSA terminated Burch’s benefits in June 2018; the CDIU then referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney, and Burch was indicted in March 2020 on three counts (theft of government property, Social Security fraud, false statements).
Pretrial: Burch moved to suppress statements from both interviews, to dismiss the indictment (vagueness/Due Process), for early Brady/Giglio disclosure, for 404(b) notice, and to sequester witnesses.
Rulings: Court suppressed all statements and derivative evidence from the June 15 and July 25, 2017 interviews; denied dismissal of the indictment; granted early Brady/Giglio disclosure; denied without prejudice motions for Rule 404(b) disclosure and witness sequestration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression — June 15, 2017 home entry	Gov't: consent to entry was voluntary; undercover ruse permissible	Burch: agents used deceptive, coercive ruse that vitiated voluntary consent	Suppressed — warrantless entry and statements excluded; consent held involuntary under Fourth Amendment
Suppression — July 25, 2017 SSA interview	Gov't: administrative interview; no criminal referral yet; no bad faith	Burch: interview was part of criminal investigation cloaked as administrative action; bad faith deception induced statements	Suppressed — agents acted in bad faith by misleading Burch; statements and derivatives excluded
Motion to dismiss indictment (vagueness/Due Process)	Gov't: statutory/legal standards (substantial gainful activity) and specific intent element cure vagueness; jury can decide	Burch: SGA standard is vague/highly debatable so prosecution violates Due Process	Denied — vagueness challenge rejected; specific intent requirement protects against arbitrary enforcement; issue for jury
Early disclosure of Brady/Giglio material	Gov't: no opposition filed	Burch: requests immediate Brady/Giglio production	Granted — court orders early disclosure

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry rule; Fourth Amendment focus)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (consent to enter dwelling; third-party consent limits)
Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent standard)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent invalid where consent obtained by false assertion of a warrant)
Whalen v. McMullen, 907 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.) (CDIU ruse and voluntariness analysis in disability-fraud context)
Stringer v. United States, 535 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.) (suppression where administrative proceedings used to obtain evidence for criminal prosecution)
Groder v. United States, 816 F.2d 139 (4th Cir.) (bad faith defined as government fraud or deceit in administrative context)
Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (due process vagueness principles)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (vagueness and fair warning requirements)
Critzer v. United States, 498 F.2d 1160 (4th Cir.) (vagueness in criminal statutes undermines intent element)