DOJ-OGR-00002555.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 140 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 22 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (2018) (holding that an “official intrusion into [the] private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause’’). “[A] compulsory production of. . . private books and papers . . . is the equivalent of a search and seizure—and an unreasonable search and seizure—within the meaning of the fourth amendment.” Boyd v United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634-35 (1886), overruling in part on other grounds as recognized in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 407-08 (1976). Finally, “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘effects’ as well as people from unreasonable searches and seizures.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 716 (1983) (Brennan, J. concurring). It thus “protects two different interests of the citizen—the interest in retaining possession of property and the interest in maintaining personal privacy.” /d. (cleaned up). “A seizure threatens the former, a search the latter.” /d. Like a search, a seizure is “per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.” Id. at 701; see Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1, 3 (1980). Here, the grand jury subpoena was unconstitutionally overbroad because it sought production of MM entire file and was therefore akin to a general warrant. Moreover, there is no dispute the government did not establish probable cause to believe that Jy BE file contained evidence of a crim’. (DIZ 7 7 7_7__ CSCC‘ EE) Nor is there a dispute that the government lacked a warrant. (i SSCS Re) Since the government had neither probable cause nor a warrant, the JJ must be suppressed because the subpoena to DOJ-OGR-00002555