United States v. Jacobson
4 F. Supp. 3d 515
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Indictment charged Jacobson with conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and multiple distribution counts, later superseding indictment expanded counts.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence from medical office searches in 2011 and 2012, alleging Fourth Amendment lack of particularity and Rule 41 return deficiencies, and to suppress statements from custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
- Two search warrants (2011 and 2012) authorized seizures of evidence at the subject office, with Attachment A listing categories of records and data.
- Warrants allowed computer/digital data copying to extract information; no explicit temporal limitations or identified patient files, prompting challenge to particularity.
- Evidentiary hearing held on suppression of statements; court evaluated credibility of witnesses and found statements volunteered, not obtained via interrogation.
- Court denied both suppression motions, applying Fourth Amendment particularity analysis, good faith exception, and Rule 41 considerations to conclude admissibility of seized evidence and statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 and 2012 warrants were sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment | Jacobson argues warrants were overly broad and lacked time/patient-file specificity | Jacobson contends the catch-all/absence of time limits renders them defective | Warrants sufficiently particular under Galpin framework; good faith applies if challenged |
| Whether the good faith exception applies to the warrants despite purported lack of particularity | Government reliance on magistrate’s authorization should be preserved | Warrants facially deficient so reliance was unreasonable | Good faith exception applies; evidence admissible even if warrants imperfect |
| Whether suppression is warranted for the warrants due to Rule 41 (prompt return) violations | Rule 41 violation without prejudice could require suppression | Lack of prompt return does not automatically suppress; no prejudice shown | No suppression based on Rule 41 absence of prompt return; no demonstrated prejudice |
| Whether the June 22, 2012 statements were the product of custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings | Statements were custodial interrogation and subject to Miranda | Statements were volunteered, not the result of interrogation | Statements were spontaneous; Miranda warnings not required; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (three-part particularity framework for warrants)
- United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841 (2d Cir.1990) (illustrative lists can satisfy particularity)
- United States v. Buck, 813 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.1987) (particularity balanced with probable cause)
- United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1992) (identify offenses, describe place, and tie items to crimes)
- United States v. LaChance, 788 F.2d 856 (2d Cir.1986) (warrant must permit reasonable identification of seized items)
- United States v. Liu, 239 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2000) (warrant must be sufficiently specific to permit selection of items to seize)