United States v. Rigmaiden
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1506
D. Ariz.2012Background
- The government indicted Daniel Rigmaiden on 50 counts of mail and wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy relating to fraudulent tax refunds.
- A superseding indictment was filed on January 27, 2010, detailing an electronic filing scheme using deceased persons and third parties' identities.
- The government located and arrested Defendant partly by tracking an aircard connected to a laptop, which allegedly facilitated the fraud, prompting Fourth Amendment challenges.
- Defendant sought extensive discovery about the tracking technology, methods, and personnel, arguing the information was subject to a qualified law enforcement privilege under Roviaro and related cases.
- The court conducted an ex parte privilege review, heard testimony from FBI Agent Morrison, and held that a qualified privilege applies, while denying substantial discovery requests.
- The court denied most of Defendant’s discovery motions, found the privilege applicable for many categories, and set a briefing schedule for a suppression motion due by February 17, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Roviaro privilege applies to the aircard-tracking information | Rigmaiden argues disclosure is needed for an effective Fourth Amendment defense. | R blockbuster asserts the information is public and overcomes privilege; seeks details to challenge the search. | Privilege applies; disclosure denied under balancing. |
| Materiality threshold under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) for discovery | Rigmaiden contends the government’s withheld materials are material to defense. | Rigmaiden contends that non-disclosure impedes the defense and that alternative sources exist. | Threshold not met for many items; materiality shown only in limited, disclosed fashion. |
| Adequacy of suppression-hearing disclosures versus trial disclosures | Rigmaiden argues broader disclosure is needed for suppression motion. | Rigmaiden claims more comprehensive disclosure is necessary to litigate suppression. | Suppression-hearing disclosures are less demanding; current disclosures suffice for the motion. |
| Procedure and admissibility of ex parte privilege proceedings | Rigmaiden challenges ex parte process for privilege ruling. | Rigmaiden argues ex parte proceedings violate rights or transparency. | Ex parte proceedings approved as appropriate in Roviaro context; findings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (privacy of informants balanced against defense needs; qualified privilege)
- United States v. Van Horn, 789 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1986) (privilege extends to sensitive surveillance equipment information)
- McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (1967) (limitations on informing scope for suppression and preliminary issues)
- Harley v. United States, 682 F.2d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (case applying Roviaro to require consideration of alternatives and privilege burden)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (suppression hearing evidentiary standards and deference to non-trial disclosures)