## Facts

- Solid State Devices, Inc. (SSDI) supplied semiconductor devices for Department of Defense and contractor programs subject to demanding reliability standards.
- In 1995, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigated SSDI for allegedly obtaining commercial-grade parts, relabeling them as SSDI-manufactured “high reliability” components, falsifying test results, and selling them at contract prices.
- A DCIS agent submitted a supporting affidavit based on interviews and expert input; the affidavit was filed under seal because it contained sensitive information, including informant identities.
- Federal agents executed search warrants at SSDI’s facilities and seized extensive categories of business records and data, including documents, invoices, test data, computer hardware/software, and storage equipment tied to SSDI’s operations and contracts.
- SSDI asserted the search resulted in seizure of computers and more than 2,000 drawers and boxes of records, effectively capturing nearly all business records for roughly five years.
- SSDI filed a pre-indictment motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) (now 41(g)) seeking return of property, arguing the warrants were overbroad and lacked particularity.
- The government conceded the warrants were broad but argued probable cause showed SSDI was pervasively fraudulent, justifying an “all records” seizure.
- The district court denied relief, and SSDI appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrants’ descriptions of items to be seized satisfied the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement or were impermissibly overbroad general warrants.
2. Whether the supporting showing established probable cause that SSDI’s business was pervaded by fraud, permitting an “all records” business-records warrant.
3. Whether SSDI was entitled to return of property under Rule 41(e) based on the asserted unconstitutionality of the warrants.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of SSDI’s Rule 41(e) motion and remanded.
- The court held the warrants were insufficiently particular and overbroad under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held the sealed affidavit did not establish probable cause that SSDI’s entire business was pervaded by fraud and therefore did not justify near-wholesale seizure of records.
- The court rejected the argument that the sealed affidavit, read with the warrant, cured the lack of particularity where the warrant itself provided few meaningful constraints.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to particularly describe items to be seized; warrants that allow general exploratory rummaging are invalid.
- Broad “all records” warrants are permissible only in narrow circumstances where probable cause shows the business is essentially a criminal enterprise or pervasively fraudulent, not merely involved in some fraudulent practices.
- A warrant must meaningfully limit executing officers’ discretion on its face; an affidavit cannot save an overbroad warrant when the warrant’s limiting detail is absent or effectively unavailable due to sealing.
- Rule 41(e) (now 41(g)) provides a pre-indictment mechanism for an aggrieved party to seek return of property seized under an unlawful search.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit found the business-records warrants unconstitutional because they lacked particularity and were not supported by a showing that SSDI’s operations were pervasively fraudulent, and it directed the district court to grant Rule 41(e) relief consistent with that determination.


In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Solid State Devices, Inc., 130 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 1997)