Dawn Hanna exported goods to Iraq in the early 2000's by way of other countries, in violation of the economic embargo that was in place at that time. She sought to suppress evidence against her on the grounds that warrants issued against her had been overly broad. The Sixth Circuit held that under the circumstances of her case, the warrants were not overly broad.
In the early 2000's, Dawn Hanna was a director of sales at Technology Integration Group Services (TIGS). At the same time, the United States had an embargo which prohibited virtually all trade with Iraq.
Hanna was approached to design a cellular phone system to be built in Baghdad, Iraq. Although Hanna was aware of the embargo, she testified that she initially believed that the program had been approved under the so-called "Oil for Food" program which allowed for small amounts of humanitarian goods to be imported into Iraq. Hanna claimed that she subsequently learned that the program was not approved under Oil for Food and withdrew from the proposed transaction.
However, Hanna then "proceeded to negotiate, arrange, and complete several other shipments of items from and through various places, all ultimately going to Iraq, in violation of the embargo." Hanna claimed that she believed the final destination for the goods was Mr. Emad Al-Yawer, the owner of a company called ATS, in Turkey. Mr. Al-Yawer backed this claim, saying that although goods were sent to Iraq, he had deceived Hanna, who at all times believed the good were destined for Turkey. However, a freight company owner involved in the shipping of the goods, a business associate of Hanna's, and a friend of Hanna's contradicted this testimony. All three said Hanna knew the goods were bound for Iraq.
Hanna and her business associates "located suppliers in the United Kingdom and Germany for their project in September 2002. They informed the suppliers that the equipment was headed to Turkey, purchased the equipment, and made four separate shipments to Iraq by way of Syria. To finance the transactions, TIGS received two wire transfers, totaling approximately $9.5 million, which was distributed to various people in the scheme, including Al-Yawer. A little over one million was kept by TIGS and Hanna's family, as profit." In early 2003, after these four successful shipments, one shipment was seized by U.S. authorities, while a second was seized by British officials. The US and UK both began investigations.
Special Agent Brian Wallace of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) provided the government with an affidavit. The affidavit explained that, among other things:
- A letter from an ATS associate to the preferred freighter used by TIGS was found in the TIGS office which thanked the freighter for their "help and support in shipping our goods to Iraq via Syria";
- A memorandum from the Iraqi government was also found, providing evidence of business links between ATS and the Iraqi government at a time when TIGS and ATS were also working together; and
- An Iraqi employee of ATS stated that the shipment seized by the British authorities was likely bound for Iraq because he had been given extensive training on use of the equipment, and that the Jordan seaport already had similar equipment.
In 2008 at trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Hanna moved to suppress evidence and any information obtained against her. Hanna argued, among other things, that materials searched should have been "limited to searches involving foreign trade, or to certain filters on the ‘subject line and header' information on emails to only obtain communications on certain matters or from particular persons or places." The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Hanna was convicted on nine of the ten charges at trial.
Hanna appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit again arguing, among other things, that the warrants issued were overly broad and should have been limited to matters involving foreign trade, certain subjects, persons and places.
The court of appeals agreed that the Fourth Amendment "requires that a warrant describe with particularity the items to be seized . . . so as ‘to prevent the use of general warrants authorizing wide-ranging rummaging searches' that violate the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. United States v. Logan, 250 F.3d 350, 364."
However, the court also explained that "'[w]hile a general order to explore and rummage is not permitted, the degree of specificity required is flexible and will vary depending on the crime involved and the types of items sought.' United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 477 (6th Cir. 2001) . . . . Therefore, ‘a description is ‘valid if it is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permit.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Ables, 167 F.3d 1021, 1033 (6th Cir. 1999))."
While Hanna contended that "the search should have been limited to search the subject and address lines of emails for indications that the messages related to the investigation," the court of appeals disagreed. The court of appeals accepted the district court's finding that a header and subject search would have been inappropriate, given that the subject lines of Hanna's emails were often blank or cryptic, and that in any case, it was unlikely that she would provide an accurate description of illegal activities in the subject line.
Furthermore, the court of appeals found, the government had in fact been limited in its search. The government needed to be broad in the warrant because at the time they were issued, the government did not know of all involved parties or exactly where materials would be found. Even so, the warrants were limited to target certain items related to TIGS and Hanna during the time period of the illegal activity - between 2001 and 2004. The court of appeals found these limitations to be sufficiently narrow in light of the circumstances of Hanna's case.
The case is United States v. Hanna and can be read here.
