United States v. Elkorany
1:20-cr-00437
S.D.N.Y.Aug 17, 2021Background
- Defendant Karim Elkorany, a former U.N. employee, was indicted on two counts of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and one count of assaulting an internationally protected person (18 U.S.C. § 112(a)).
- The FBI obtained three judicially authorized search warrants for Elkorany’s Facebook (NJ magistrate, July 2017), Google (SDNY magistrate, Sept. 2, 2020), and Apple iCloud (this Court) accounts based on affidavits describing multiple alleged victims and account communications.
- The warrants listed multiple subject offenses (sexual assault-related crimes, stalking, kidnapping, and the § 1001 false-statement charge for Google/Apple) and specified categories of evidence to be seized (communications, photos, internet searches, etc.).
- Elkorany moved to suppress the materials produced under those warrants, arguing lack of probable cause, insufficient particularity, and overbreadth; in reply he focused chiefly on the Facebook warrant’s lack of a temporal limitation.
- The government relied on detailed affidavits recounting victim interviews, account messages and emails, and the potential for relevant material to be stored in the accounts; the Court denied the suppression motion and noted many arguments were effectively waived by Elkorany’s failure to press them in reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the three search warrants | Affidavits with victim interviews, account communications, emails, and other corroborating facts provided a fair probability evidence would be found in the accounts | Warrants lacked probable cause (and raised jurisdictional concerns for some overseas acts) | Court: Each warrant supported by probable cause; issuing judges had a substantial basis to issue them |
| Particularity of the warrants | Warrants identified offenses, described the electronic accounts as places to search, and listed categories of items tied to the crimes | Categories were too broad and failed to limit seizure to specific items | Court: Particularity satisfied; categories linked to designated crimes and illustrative lists are permissible |
| Overbreadth as to scope of production (turning over entire accounts) | It is appropriate to seize entire electronic accounts pursuant to a warrant and then review for enumerated evidence | Production of “all information regarding the accounts” is effectively limitless and overbroad | Court: Not overbroad; law enforcement may obtain full account data to search for specified evidence |
| Facebook warrant temporal scope (no date range) | Complex, multi-year pattern of offenses justified no strict temporal limit | Facebook warrant overbroad because it lacked a time frame and account predated alleged conduct (created 2005) | Court: Absence of a time frame did not render the warrant invalid given the long-running pattern; no specific pre-2012 evidence was shown to be problematic |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable-cause totality-of-the-circumstances test)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (probable cause standard for searches)
- United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (deference to issuing judge’s probable-cause finding)
- United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69 (review of issuing officer’s finding of probable cause)
- United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (warrant scope and searching electronic/online accounts)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (particularity requirements for warrants)
- United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841 (limits on seizure; relation to specified crimes)
- United States v. Levy, 803 F.3d 120 (absence of a strict temporal limitation is permissible for long-running investigations)
- United States v. Lustyik, 57 F. Supp. 3d 213 (broad categories described as evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of crimes can satisfy particularity)
- United States v. Jacobson, 4 F. Supp. 3d 515 (no temporal limitation required where crimes span many years)