United States v. Lustyik
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143039
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Defendants Lustyik, Thaler, and Ahmed are charged with bribery-related offenses stemming from alleged arrangements to sell confidential FBI information.
- The government moved to suppress digital evidence from Lustyik’s and Thaler’s email accounts and smartphones, and Thaler moved to suppress statements made to OIG agents.
- Warrants were issued in 2012 for Lustyik’s and Thaler’s emails and smartphones, followed by subsequent warrants and re-review of material.
- During review, government recoded eight previously nonresponsive email chains as relevant, including exchanges involving Ahmed about Joy and potential payments.
- The court held that the motions to suppress should be denied, addressing standing, probable cause, particularity, and searches of digital devices and the later-re-coded emails.
- The plain view doctrine was relied upon to justify retaining the Re-Coded Emails despite their scope exceeding initial warrants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Taylor’s email search | Lustyik lacks standing to challenge Taylor’s emails | Lustyik’s privacy interests extend to emails he authored/received | Lustyik lacks standing; denial of the suppression as to poisonous-tree argument |
| Probable cause for the June 2012 Thaler Warrant | Probable cause supported by affidavit tying Lustyik to obstruction of the Taylor investigation | Probable cause lacking or insufficient to justify seizure of Thaler’s account | Probable cause established; warrant valid for purposes of the obstruction evidence |
| Particularity and incorporation of Attachment B Section III | Warrant failed to incorporate Section III; overbroad illustrative list | Good faith); Section III effectively guided search | Not suppression; good-faith exception applies; Section III effectively guided review despite incorporation defect |
| Digital searches without protocols | No search protocols; constitutes general rummaging | Second Circuit has not required explicit protocols for digital warrants | No Fourth Amendment violation; searches reasonable without protocols under current precedent |
| Re-Coded Emails and plain view | Re-CodedEmails exceed scope of warrants; suppression warranted | Plain view exception renders retention lawful; otherwise admissible | Re-Coded Emails admitted under plain view despite exceeding scope; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (Supreme Court, 2014) (digital searches require careful privacy considerations; cell phone searches require warrants)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 2004) (unincorporated attachments cannot cure a defective warrant absent proper incorporation)
- United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) (good faith exception factors; attachments/affidavits influence suppression analysis)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court, 1984) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (no strict protocol requirement for digital warrants; reasonableness of search)
- United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841 (2d Cir. 1990) (illustrative lists can sufficiently narrow seizures; not every item must be enumerated)
- United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir. 1994) (no suppression where no Fourth Amendment violation shown)
- Ganias v. United States, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (retention of items outside scope; plain view/exception analysis in digital searches)