United States v. Taylor
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12677
D. Me.2011Background
- Defendant indicted for failure to pay child support in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3).
- Post-indictment, government obtained a search warrant for the defendant's Microsoft Hotmail account and related records.
- Warrant authorized seizure of records constituting fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of § 228 violations, including financial and purchasing records.
- Microsoft produced a zip drive with emails; an agent reviewed headers first, then paused upon seeing communications with defendant's lawyers.
- Government proposed a filter agent approach to exclude privileged materials; magistrate judge approved a three-category screening plan (privileged, arguably privileged, unprivileged).
- A filter agent removed eleven privileged emails and supplied them to defense; no items in the arguably privileged category were found; unprivileged items were provided to the agent and AUSA for investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether privileged communications were adequately excluded | Taylor claims failure to protect privileged materials taints seizure. | Taylor contends filter approach is per se inadequate and allows privilege waiver. | Denies suppression; procedures reasonably protected privilege. |
| Whether attorney-client information was disclosed to the government | Eleven privileged emails allegedly disclosed via filter process. | Disclosure to filter agent violated privilege and requires suppression. | No disclosure occurred; filter complied with order; no privilege breach. |
| Whether the search warrant was overly broad or insufficiently particularized | Warrant should be limited to communications linked to specific financial-evidence sources. | Scope was too broad and not sufficiently tailored to financial means. | Warrant reasonably limited; permitted search of e-mail account for financial-related records. |
| "Arguably privileged" emails were not isolated | Filter failed to isolate all arguably privileged communications. | Defendant identified several arguably privileged emails. | Harmless error; no actual privileged communications identified for protective limitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2006) (use of privilege review mechanisms and independent review options)
- United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571 (1st Cir. 1990) (limited per se exclusion not required; permissible review and sampling of materials)
- In re Search Warrant for Law Offices, 153 F.R.D. 55 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (special master/neutral review considerations for attorney-client materials)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits of prejudice and privilege handling in electronic searches)
- United States v. Bowen, 689 F. Supp. 2d 675 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (computer data searches and seizure vs. screening precedents)