United States v. Ganias
Unites States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
755 F.3d 125 (2014)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Stavros Ganias (defendant) provided tax and accounting services to James McCarthy and two of his businesses, American Boiler and International Property Management (IPM), which provided services to the Army. IPM came under investigation by the Army. Investigators obtained search warrants, including one for Ganias’s accounting office. The warrant authorized the seizure of a large volume of materials, including all computer hardware, software, and data relating to business with IPM and American Boiler. During the warrant’s execution, computers were not seized but instead copied as mirror images. These mirror images included documents not responsive to the search warrant, such as Ganias’s personal financial records. An agent assured Ganias that all irrelevant files would be purged. While the government (plaintiff) possessed these mirror images, Ganias came under investigation for tax violations. The government had never purged any of the unresponsive files, so a search warrant was obtained to review documents relating to the investigation of Ganias. The government did not review these files until after the new search warrant was obtained. This occurred over two years after the initial seizure. The government contended the files were government property. Ganias was convicted on two counts of tax evasion and appealed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress the evidence retained by the government.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.