## Facts

- Donald G. Ford and his wife operated a bingo hall that conducted bingo games in the name of charitable organizations.
- Beginning in December 1991, Ford registered posts of the Regular Veterans Association (RVA) as charitable bingo-game sponsors connected to the bingo operation.
- Federal investigators suspected the bingo operation violated charitable-gaming laws and generated unlawful proceeds.
- Investigators sought and obtained a search warrant supported by an affidavit describing suspected charitable-gaming violations and requesting seizure of broad categories of financial and business records.
- Officers executed the warrant at the bingo hall and at an RVA hall located across the street.
- At the RVA hall, officers seized most of the documents present, including materials tied to other Ford-owned businesses.
- Officers also seized documents dated between 1984 and 1988 relating to a real-estate transaction that was not part of the alleged bingo/charitable-gaming scheme described in the warrant application.
- Ford and his wife were indicted for operating an illegal gambling business (18 U.S.C. § 1955) and for money-laundering offenses (including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957).
- Ford was also charged with a tax offense tied to the older real-estate transaction, based on the seized real-estate records.
- The district court denied the defendants’ suppression motions, and a jury convicted Ford and his wife on the gambling and money-laundering counts; Ford was also convicted on the tax count.
- On appeal, Ford challenged the denial of suppression, arguing the warrant failed the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and led to seizure of records unrelated to the alleged charitable-gaming violations.

## Issues

1. Whether the search warrant’s description of items to be seized satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement when it authorized broad seizure of financial records and was used to take documents unrelated to the suspected charitable-gaming violations.
2. If the warrant or its execution was partly invalid, whether the proper remedy was to suppress only the unlawfully seized, unrelated records (rather than suppressing all seized evidence).
3. Whether Ford’s tax conviction, which depended on the seized real-estate records, could stand if those records were suppressed, and whether any reversal required remand for resentencing on the remaining counts.

## Decision

- The court held that the warrant, as applied at the RVA hall, was overbroad to the extent it authorized or resulted in seizure of documents with no meaningful link to the suspected charitable-gaming/bingo violations described in the affidavit.
- The court applied the severance doctrine, suppressing only the evidence taken under the invalid portion of the warrant (including the older real-estate documents and other unrelated business records).
- Because Ford’s tax conviction rested on the suppressed real-estate materials, the court reversed that conviction.
- The court affirmed the convictions for operating an illegal gambling business and money laundering to the extent they were supported by properly seized records tied to the bingo/charitable-gaming investigation.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its suppression ruling, including resentencing in light of the reversed tax conviction.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to particularly describe the items to be seized; a warrant may not function as authority for a general rummaging through business papers.
- Particularity is assessed in relation to the probable-cause showing in the supporting affidavit; seizure authority must be reasonably connected to the offenses for which probable cause is established.
- When a warrant contains both valid and invalid parts, a court may sever the invalid portion and suppress only evidence seized under that portion, while admitting evidence seized under valid, supported categories.
- Evidence seized outside the lawful scope of a warrant is subject to suppression, and a conviction dependent on suppressed evidence cannot stand.
- When reversal of a count affects the sentencing package, remand for resentencing on the remaining counts is appropriate.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Ford*, the Sixth Circuit concluded that a bingo-hall investigation warrant was applied too broadly when agents seized large quantities of records at the RVA hall that were unrelated to the suspected charitable-gaming violations, including older real-estate documents later used to prosecute Ford for a tax offense. The court severed the warrant, suppressed only the unrelated materials, reversed Ford’s tax conviction that depended on those records, affirmed the illegal-gambling and money-laundering convictions supported by properly seized evidence, and remanded for resentencing and further proceedings consistent with its Fourth Amendment ruling.


United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566 (1999)