United States vs Ganias

Case Brief
Case name: The United States of America, Appellee, V. Stavros M. Ganias, defendant-appellant
Case citation: {12-240 (2d Cir. 2014)}
Court: US Court of Appeals, The Second Circuit
Decision Date: June 17, 2014
Procedural post one: This is an appeal case. It commenced as of the District Court of the United States decision, which found the appellant guilty of tax evasion. This decision by the District Court was brought to The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the verdict was delivered.
Procedural History: The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut convicted the defendant for tax evasion. The appellant appealed the jury verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the grounds that his right to fair trial and the Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Facts: The District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a warrant dated November 17, 2003, authorizing the army to search and seize some goods from the appellant’s office. This followed a tip received by the Criminal Investigative Command of the Army, which stated that the appellant and company were engaging in improper conduct. The army made forensic mirror images of the hard drives of the appellant’s computers. They carried the information to do investigations. Some of the information was non-responsive to the warrant.
Legal Issues: Are jurors allowed to befriend each other on Facebook and make comments regarding a particular case, or does it amount to unfair trial? Did the failure to delete the non-responsive data amount to unreasonable seizure, and as such, violated the Fourth Amendment?
Decision: It does not amount to unfair trial if jurors befriend each other on Facebook, and do not try to influence each other’s decisions regarding a particular case.

Failure to delete non-responsive information and keeping it for a long time with the intention of using the same information as probable cause to get a warrant amounts to unreasonable seizure, and violates the rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Dissent: Judge Hall concurred in part and dissented in part. He concurred with the opinion that retention of non-responsive files for an extended period amounted to an unreasonable seizure, therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. However, he dissented with the majority’s opinion to suppress the evidence gotten. He was of the opinion that the government had acted in good faith going by the case law that existed at the time.