## Facts

- Donn VonderAhe, a dentist, and his wife Barbara VonderAhe filed joint federal income tax returns for 1966 and 1967.
- The IRS audited those returns, and an IRS agent reviewed records Donn supplied from his dental practice and recommended acceptance of the returns as filed.
- Former employees later told the IRS that Donn kept a “second set” of records for “emergency” patients, kept on yellow sheets or green cards, that were not shown to the IRS.
- A dental-office employee also reported that she and Donn moved the yellow sheets and green cards to the VonderAhes’ home to keep them from the IRS.
- Based on these statements, IRS agents obtained search warrants for both the dental office and the VonderAhes’ home.
- The warrants were broad; they were not limited to the suspected yellow sheets or green cards and instead covered categories such as essentially all dental-patient records, appointment books, and financial records.
- In June 1970, IRS agents executed the warrants at both locations, conducted extensive searches, and seized large quantities of documents, including materials unrelated to the suspected “emergency” records.
- At the time of the suit, the government had not filed a criminal indictment against either Donn or Barbara VonderAhe.
- The VonderAhes filed a civil action against IRS Special Agent Roy H. Howland and other federal officers seeking: (1) return of seized property, (2) an injunction against the IRS’s use of the seized material, (3) suppression of the material in any criminal prosecution, and (4) $15,000 in damages for harm to Donn’s dental practice.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief and granted the government’s motion to dismiss.
- The VonderAhes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may hear a standalone civil action in equity (with no pending indictment) seeking return of property and an injunction limiting governmental use of materials allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the warrants for the office and home were so broad, given what the IRS claimed it was looking for, that they failed the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and operated as general warrants.
3. Whether the VonderAhes could pursue a damages claim in this action for alleged harm to the dental practice caused by the searches and seizures.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had equitable authority to consider a civil action for return of property and limited injunctive relief even though no criminal case was pending.
- The court concluded the warrants were unconstitutionally broad in light of the government’s asserted focus on specific “emergency patient” records and the sweeping seizure of many other documents.
- The court reversed the dismissal to the extent it foreclosed equitable relief and remanded with directions for the district court to grant appropriate relief aimed at preventing government use of materials obtained through the invalid warrants and to address return of seized property consistent with the opinion.
- The court did not accept all requested remedies in full and limited the required relief to what was necessary to address the Fourth Amendment violation.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may, in an equitable civil action, order the return of property and impose limited restrictions on government use of materials obtained through an unconstitutional search, even when no indictment has been filed.
- The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to describe with sufficient particularity the items to be seized; when investigators have reason to seek identified records, a warrant authorizing seizure of broad categories of business and personal papers risks becoming a prohibited general warrant.
- When the government seizes documents far beyond the suspected items and conducts wide-ranging rummaging through private papers, equitable relief may be warranted to prevent further governmental use of unlawfully obtained materials.

## Conclusion

VonderAhe v. Howland held that broad IRS warrants for a dentist’s office and home—issued after informants identified specific concealed “emergency patient” records—failed the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, and that taxpayers may bring a standalone civil action in equity (even without an indictment) to obtain return of seized property and limited injunctive relief restricting the government’s use of materials obtained through the unconstitutional searches.


VonderAhe v. Howland, 508 F.2d 364 (1975)