United States v. Ganias
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11222
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Ganias was convicted of tax evasion after an IRS investigation related to IPM and American Boiler; a 2003 Army warrant authorized seizure of Ganias’s business records, not his personal files.
- Army investigators copied three of Ganias’s hard drives to mirror images and retained all data, including personal files beyond the warrant scope.
- Investigators promised to purge non-relevant data, but they did not, and the data remained in government possession for about 2.5 years.
- In 2004, the government shared the imaged drives with the IRS for separate review; both agencies identified relevant files but kept non-responsive data.
- By 2006, after developing probable cause, the government obtained another warrant to search the preserved personal files; evidence used in Ganias’s case partly derived from retention of the earlier copies.
- During trial, Juror X posted and interacted on Facebook about the case; the jury convicted Ganias on April 1, 2011; a post-trial juror-misconduct motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror social media use requires a new trial | Ganias argues juror misconduct biased the trial. | Government asserts no substantial prejudice; judge credibility finding stands. | No new trial required; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether retrospective retention of non-responsive data violated the Fourth Amendment | Ganias contends indefinite retention of personal files beyond the scope of the 2003 warrant was an unreasonable seizure. | Government contends mirror imaging/off-site review is reasonable and permissible. | Retaining non-responsive personal files indefinitely violated the Fourth Amendment; suppression warranted; conviction vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aiello v. United States, 771 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1985) (impartial jury requires inquiry when reasonable grounds exist)
- Fumo v. United States, 655 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2011) (juror conduct and impartiality; caution on social media)
- Schwarz v. United States, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (courts should inquire into potential juror partiality when indicated)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule deterrence balancing)
- United States v. Davis, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good-faith exception; deterrence considerations in suppression analysis)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (digital searches; particularity and modern technology considerations)
- Tamura v. United States, 694 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1982) (intermingled documents may be seized off-site under monitoring when feasible)
- United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (criteria for retaining data beyond scope without independent basis)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (technology impacts on Fourth Amendment reasonableness)