United States v. Scott
12 F. Supp. 3d 298
D. Mass.2014Background
- Scott was targeted in a federal mortgage lending fraud probe and participated in multiple proffer sessions under a government immunity offer.
- He signed a May 15, 2009 FBI consent-to-search form authorizing forensic imaging of his computer and server.
- Eighteen proffers occurred in 2009 with substantial production of documents to the government.
- Scott filed bankruptcy April 30, 2009; Trustee later received Scott’s server, laptop, and records which V&L imaged and returned.
- In 2012 the Trustee provided material to the government; the government obtained a search warrant March 22, 2012 based on data imaged earlier, leading to a suppression motion by Scott.
- The court ordered suppression of the cloned files imaging and V&L seizure, but did not rule on other March 22, 2012 warrant evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent-to-search waived proffer immunity protections | Scott | Scott's proffer protections were not waived by consent form | Yes, consent form did not waive immunity protections |
| Whether derivative use of immunized data was permissible | Scott | Derivative use allowed to obtain data | No, derivative use was not permitted for the March 22, 2012 warrant evidence |
| Whether the Trustee's retention constitutes unlawful governmental seizure | Scott | No unlawful seizure; Trustee acted independently | No explicit holding; focus on Fifth/Fourth Amendment issues above |
| Whether Fifth Amendment immunized statements can be used to support a search warrant under Fourth Amendment | Scott | Derivative or indirect use permitted | No; Fifth Amendment protections cannot be circumvented to obtain the same evidence via Fourth Amendment route |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Melvin, 730 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (immunity agreements interpreted with due-process safeguards; language controls when ambiguity favors defendant)
- Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Constitution Reinsurance Corp., 416 Mass. 839 (Mass. 1994) (contractual interpretation with due-process consideration in immunity contexts)
- United States v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1990) (due-process obligations in immunity agreements; square corners doctrine)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (self-incrimination vs. physical evidence; derivative effect noted)
- Arizona v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974) (exclusionary rule deterrence; Fourth Amendment scope)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1990) (Fourth Amendment standing and third-party disclosure considerations)
- United States v. Setser, 568 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2009) (voluntary disclosure generally affects Fourth Amendment expectations)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (fruits of invalid portions of a warrant may be excised if severable)
- Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006) (guidance on government duty not to overwhelm proffer protections)