## Facts

- EPA Special Agent Judy Vasey interviewed six former employees of Enviro-Analysts, Inc. and Shepard Plating Company, Inc., businesses operating from the same building at 949 Erie Street in Racine, Wisconsin.
- The former employees reported that Enviro-Analysts issued environmental reports and analyses even when underlying tests were not performed, and that report information was falsified using various methods.
- Vasey prepared a detailed affidavit asserting probable cause that Enviro-Analysts’ practices violated multiple federal laws and that records at 949 Erie Street would constitute evidence of those offenses.
- On August 8, 1986, a U.S. magistrate judge issued a federal search warrant for the 949 Erie Street premises and authorized seizure of a broad range of documentary materials connected to environmental testing, reporting, and related business activities.
- The warrant incorporated and attached (1) a description of the premises to be searched and (2) detailed lists of property to be seized; the magistrate also ordered the supporting affidavit sealed for 60 days.
- EPA agents executed the warrant in mid-August 1986 over two days and seized approximately 250 items, largely business and laboratory records. To reduce business disruption, agents copied many documents and left copies with the companies.
- Before any indictment, Enviro-Analysts and Shepard filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) seeking return of the seized property and an order quashing the warrant, arguing the warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant and that sealing the affidavit violated their rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the search warrant’s description of items to be seized was so broad that it became an unconstitutional general warrant, or whether it satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement when read with its incorporated attachments.
2. Whether the magistrate’s 60-day sealing of the warrant affidavit required suppression, quashing of the warrant, or disclosure to the movants at this investigative stage.
3. Whether, in a pre-indictment posture, Enviro-Analysts and Shepard were entitled to return of property under Rule 41(e) given the government’s continuing need for evidence and the steps taken to lessen disruption.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to quash the warrant and denied the Rule 41(e) request for return of property.
- The court held that the warrant, together with the attached and incorporated descriptions of the premises and items to be seized, provided adequate limits on the search and did not authorize a free-ranging rummage.
- The court upheld the temporary sealing of the supporting affidavit, concluding that the sealing order was reasonable during an ongoing investigation and did not invalidate the warrant or require immediate disclosure on the movants’ demand.
- The court declined to order wholesale return of seized materials, noting the government’s legitimate evidentiary need and that the EPA had reduced hardship by copying many documents and leaving copies with the businesses.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to describe with sufficient particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized so executing officers do not have unchecked discretion.
- A warrant’s particularity may be satisfied by documents that are expressly incorporated by reference and physically attached, so that the warrant package operates as a single instrument for Fourth Amendment purposes.
- In investigations centered on alleged falsification and record-based offenses, warrants may authorize seizure of broad categories of business records when the categories are tied to the suspected offenses and to the types of evidence expected to be found.
- A magistrate may temporarily seal a warrant affidavit to protect investigative interests; a limited sealing period does not, by itself, violate the Fourth Amendment or require invalidation of the search.
- Rule 41(e) relief before indictment is equitable and discretionary; courts consider the movant’s hardship from retention of property against the government’s need to keep evidence during an active investigation, including whether the government has provided copies or otherwise reduced disruption.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld the EPA’s search of 949 Erie Street and refused to order return of the seized materials, concluding that the warrant—read with its attached, incorporated schedules—was sufficiently specific to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, that temporary sealing of the supporting affidavit was permissible during an ongoing investigation, and that pre-indictment Rule 41(e) relief was not warranted given the government’s evidentiary need and the reduced burden on the businesses from access to copied records.


In the Matter of the Search of 949 Erie Street, Racine, Wisconsin, 645 F. Supp. 55 (1986)