1. SUBPOENAS v. SEARCH WARRANTS: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHITE COLLAR CRIME NATIONAL INSTITUTE MIAMI, FLORIDA MARCH 6, 2008 KURT STITCHER LEVENFELD PEARLSTEIN, LLC

3. SUBPOENA ISSUES  NEGOTIATION/OBJECTION –MOTION TO QUASH: Rule 17(c) –MAY BE ABLE TO LIMIT SCOPE  SEGREGATION –TECHNOLOGICAL –HUMAN REVIEW

4. SEARCH WARRANT ISSUES  OBJECTION –MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY: Rule 41(g) –EX POST ONLY  SEGREGATION –SEIZURE/IMAGING BY GOVERNMENT –PROBLEM: INTERMINGLED FILES

5. SUBPOENA KEYS  PRE-PRODUCTION NEGOTIATION  PRE-PRODUCTION OBJECTION  PRE-PRODUCTION SEGREGATION

6. SEARCH WARRANT KEYS  NO PRE-PRODUCTION NEGOTIATION  NO PRE-PRODUCTION OBJECTION  NO PRE-PRODUCTION SEGREGATION

7. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIENTS  LIKE NIGHT AND DAY  SUBPOENA = SOME CONTROL  SEARCH WARRANT = NONE  MOST CRITICAL FOR PRIVILEGED/ PROTECTED INFORMATION

8. SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENTS  BASES –RULE 41 –FOURTH AMENDMENT  REQUIREMENTS –PROBABLE CAUSE –PARTICULARITY

9. COMPLICATING FACTORS  PRACTICAL –VOLUME OF ESI –RELATIONAL DATA: INTERMINGLING  LEGAL –NO METHODOLOGY REQUIREMENT –NO ON-SITE SEARCH REQUIREMENT

10. THE END RESULT  WHOLESALE ESI SEIZURES –HARDWARE OR IMAGING –STORAGE DEVICES  POST-SEIZURE “SEARCHES” –BROAD & SWEEPING –“PLAIN VIEW” SEIZURES

11. THE FINAL INSULT: RULE 41(g)  UNLAWFUL SEARCH/SEIZURE –MUST ESTABLISH 4 TH AM. VIOLATION –G CAN KEEP UNDER 4 TH AM. EXCEPTION (GOOD FAITH; IMPEACHMENT; INEVITABLE DISCOVERY; PURGING OF THE TAINT)  LAWFUL SEARCH/SEIZURE –NEED EQUITABLE JURISDICTION –RETENTION MUST BE UNREASONABLE

12. THE BALCO DECISION  FEDERAL GJ INVESTIGATION –SUBPOENA TO MLB => NO DOCS –SUBPOENAS TO 3 RD PARTY LABS => MTQ  SEARCH WARRANTS FOR LABS –RESISTANCE FAILS => DIRECTORY IMAGED –ALL OF LAB’S SPORTS DRUG TESTING SEIZED  MORE SUBPOENAS & WARRANTS –THIRD PARTIES UNAWARE/FAIL TO OBJECT –DIST. COURTS ORDER RETURN

14. THE MAJORITY OPINION  NO EQUITABLE JURISDICTION –NO “CALLOUS DISREGARD” FOR MLB RIGHTS –SUBPOENAS. AND WARRANTS OK –IMAGING DIRECTORY OK: G DOES NOT HAVE TO RELY ON SEARCHED PARTY  NO BASIS FOR PROPERTY RETURN –G HAD PROVIDED COPIES TO LABS –G NEEDED ESI FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION –DID REQUIRE TAMURA COMPLIANCE

15. THE DISSENTING OPINION  CALLOUS DISREGARD => EQUITY –G AVOIDED OBJECTION WITH 1-2 PUNCH –G REVIEWED ESI W/O NEUTRAL OBSERVER –O-O-J THREAT TO LAB WAS OUTRAGEOUS  PROPERTY RETURN PROPER –NO PC BEYOND FIRST 10 MLB PLAYERS –PLAIN VIEW NO GOOD FOR INTERMINGLED ESI –3 RD PARTIES PREJUDICED W/NO NOTICE

16. BALCO’S BOTTOM LINE  NO ABILITY TO CHALLENGE –SEIZURE BEYOND PROBABLE CAUSE –SEIZURE OF PRIVILEGED/PROTECTED ESI  ALL ESI WARRANTS ARE “GENERAL”  41(g) GUTTED –“UNLAWFUL” SEARCH UNLIKELY –COPIES TRUMP “UNREASONABLE” RETENTION  THIRD PARTIES SOL: NO NOTICE