United States v. Kuc
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24489
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Kuc fraudulently obtained computer parts under warranty from major manufacturers, using false defect claims and real serial numbers to secure free replacements.
- He employed hundreds of aliases, multiple addresses with varied spellings, and operated under the business name Total Asset Recovery to resell parts online for profit.
- Samuel, a business associate, allowed deliveries to his address, and Kuc used Samuel's name and company to receive parts at 42 Union Street and other locations.
- Kuc's scheme yielded over $3.5 million in parts received and about $1.32 million in online sales; he stored lists of aliases, addresses, and contacts in files and notebook.
- A December 10, 2010 search warrant authorized broad seizure at Kuc's residence; agents seized大量 of parts, and documents linking aliases and addresses to the scheme.
- Kuc moved to suppress the search fruits in 2012 claiming lack of particularity; the district court denied suppression and trial proceeded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant violated particularity | Kuc argues the warrant is general due to 'including, without limitation' language | Kuc contends the first clause renders the warrant overbroad and passages lack specificity | No; warrant read in context satisfies particularity and good-faith exception applies |
| Whether evidence supports aggravated identity theft | Prosecution contends Samuel's full name and company constitute a means of identification | Kuc argues name alone is insufficient to identify a specific person | Yes; use of Samuel's full name plus company identified a specific individual for §1028A(a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 1999) (general warrants require particularity)
- United States v. Abrams, 615 F.2d 541 (1st Cir. 1980) (transitional language tied to specific items satisfies warrant scope)
- Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1976) (read warrant in context with list of items to be seized)
- United States v. Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1992) (second clause imposes specific search constraints; supports particularity)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception applies when warrant reasonably appears valid)
- United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1980) (illustrates interpretation of warrant language and limitations)
- Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2000) (abrogates or narrows earlier related holdings on scope of warrants)