United States v. Sheffler, 4:13-cr-00291

Background

On Sept. 25, 2012 a magistrate judge authorized a search warrant for Wolf’s Run (1412 Route 438, Irving, NY) based on an ATF affidavit alleging Parry and his business facilitated interstate shipments and receipt of unstamped (contraband) cigarettes.
Affidavit recounted multiple controlled undercover transactions (2011–2012) in which ATF agents sold unstamped cigarettes to CTW and others; drivers and records linked shipments to Wolf’s Run and Parry.
On Dec. 16, 2011 ATF undercover agents delivered unstamped cigarettes to Wolf’s Run; Parry retrieved $265,800 cash from his attached residence to pay for the load and agents observed tubs of labeled records in the garage.
In mid–2012 Parry contacted an ATF undercover agent to order a large delivery to be made “like last time,” arranging a Sept. 26, 2012 delivery for which Parry agreed to pay $358,560 in cash; the warrant was intended for execution during a controlled delivery.
The affidavit asserted Parry lacked New York wholesale/stamping licenses and described the types of records typically maintained in cigarette-distribution and fraud schemes, supporting seizure of business/financial records and currency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for warrant	Affidavit showed a fair probability that contraband and evidence of crimes would be found at Wolf’s Run based on controlled buys, deliveries, surveillance, and Parry’s cash purchase.	Warrant lacked probable cause: Parry sometimes acted as mere carrier with no knowledge of contraband; possession on sovereign territory insulates from NY tax laws; trackers lacked basis; warrant didn’t incorporate affidavit.	Magistrate had a substantial basis; probable cause existed. Incorporation and tracking-device concerns did not defeat probable cause.
Particularity / scope of seizure	Seizing business and financial records, currency, shipping records, and locking containers was appropriate given alleged pervasive fraud and book-keeping evidence.	Warrant was overbroad/general; financial records unrelated to crime and residence search exceeded business scope.	Warrant sufficiently particular for fraud investigation; permeated-fraud rationale and facts tying residence (cash retrieval) justified scope.
Staleness of information	Affidavit described ongoing pattern and recent contact (July–Sept 2012) culminating in an arranged delivery the day after the warrant application, so information was not stale.	Dec. 16, 2011 events were nine months old and no intervening crimes meant stale information.	Information was not stale; continuing pattern and recent arranged delivery corroborated relevance.
Exclusion under Leon good-faith	N/A — government argues officers reasonably relied on a neutral magistrate’s warrant.	Agents orchestrated transactions; allegedly misled magistrate; good-faith exception should not apply.	Good-faith exception applies; no showing of deliberate falsehoods, recklessness, or judicial rubber-stamping to preclude Leon.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775 (9th Cir.) (review of warrant limited to four corners of affidavit)
United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938 (8th Cir.) (probable cause standard for warrants)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
United States v. Gettel, 474 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances review)
Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861 (8th Cir.) (deference to issuing judge’s probable-cause finding)
United States v. Proell, 485 F.3d 427 (8th Cir.) (upholding warrant if substantial basis in record)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Murphy, 69 F.3d 237 (8th Cir.) (limits on good-faith reliance where affidavit contains deliberate/reckless falsehoods)
United States v. Summage, 481 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir.) (particularity standard and practical accuracy)
United States v. Kail, 804 F.2d 441 (8th Cir.) (permeated-fraud exception allows broad seizure of business records)
United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (fraud-search-warrant particularity guidance)
United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 682 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (older information may be OK where affidavit shows continuing pattern)
United States v. Palega, 556 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.) (staleness assessed in light of continuing activity)