In the Matter of the Search of 949 Erie Street, Racine, Wisconsin
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
645 F. Supp. 55 (1986)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Judy Vasey, an agent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (plaintiff), interviewed six former employees of Enviro-Analysts, Inc. and Shephard Plating Company, Inc. (Shephard) (defendants). The former employees testified that Enviro-Analysts produced environmental reports and analyses for which the underlying tests and analyses had never actually been performed. Various methods were used to falsify the information in the reports. Based on the interviews, Vasey asserted probable cause to believe that Enviro-Analysts routinely falsified its reports, violating several federal laws. Based on Vasey’s detailed affidavit, the magistrate granted the EPA a search warrant for the building occupied by Enviro-Analysts and Shephard at 949 Erie Street. The warrant detailed a wide range of documentary evidence to be seized. The Erie Street property was searched in August 1986, and many items of property were seized. Enviro-Analysts and Shephard sued to obtain an order requiring a return of the property and to quash the warrant. Enviro-Analysts and Shephard argued that the search warrant was so broad as to constitute an unconstitutional general search.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.