Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search Warrant (Abdihakim Ali Ahmed) — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 193, D. Minn.)

Summary

Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search Warrant in United States of America v. Abdihakim Ali Ahmed, 22-CR-223 (NEB/TNL), Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL, in the District of Minnesota, Doc. 193 filed 12/15/23. The defendant, through an attorney, moves to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant dated February 1, 2022 executed on a Google email account, arguing that the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause, that the warrant was overbroad and lacking in particularity, and that agents exceeded its scope. The motion states that the affidavit of FBI Agent Travis Wilmer alleges that Mr. Ahmed created ASA Limited LLC on or about September 4, 2020 and that ASA received $5.3 million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds. It also states that 22,558 emails were seized, of which 3,634 were Culled as Relevant, and asks for an evidentiary hearing citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 152 (1978).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

            CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 6




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                    MOTION TO SUPPRESS
                                                              FRUITS OF SEARCH WARRANT
                       - against -
    ABDIHAKIM ALI AHMED,                                            22-CR-223 (NEB/TNL)
                                        Defendant.




          Abdihakim Ali Ahmed, through his attorney, respectfully moves the Court for an order

suppressing evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant dated February 1, 2022 (the

“Search Warrant”) executed on the Google email account of Google user,

abdihakim.ahmed@gmail.com (the “Google Account”).1 This evidence should be suppressed

because the affidavit in support of the application for the Search Warrant (the “Affidavit”) lacked

probable cause; the Search Warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad and lacking in

particularity; and the searching agents exceeded the scope of the Search Warrant when they

disregarded its requirement of selective seizure. The impermissible scope and execution of the

Search Warrant mandate suppression. To the extent the issues may not be resolved on the papers

alone, the Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to elucidate the issues raised in this motion,

as well as analyze both the government’s assertions in support of the issuance of the warrant,

pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 152 (1978), and to determine the extent to which the

unauthorized seizures tainted other evidence to be offered at trial, pursuant to Wong Sun v.

United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963).



1
    The Search Warrant is attached as exhibit 3 to the Motion for a Franks Hearing filed by co-defendant
          Abdulkadir Salah on December 15, 2023 (Docket #188).
         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 6




                                              FACTS

       On February 1, 2022, Magistrate David T. Schultz executed a search warrant authorizing

the search of the Google account of Google user abdikahim.ahmed@gmail.com (the “Google

Account”).

       In its affidavit in support of its application for the issuance of the search warrant, the

government alleges that Mr. Ahmed created ASA Limited LLC (“ASA”) on or about September

4, 2020, and enrolled it in the Federal Child Nutrition Program under the sponsorship of Feeding

Our Future. See Affidavit of FBI Agent Travis Wilmer (“Affidavit”) at ¶¶ 35, 36.

Correspondence from Feeding our Future to the Minnesota Department of Education indicated

that ASA “would be ‘serving youth living in St. Paul’ and ‘in an area that does not have other

culturally appropriate food sites.’” Id., ¶ 36. ASA claimed $700,000 in Federal Child Nutrition

Program funds for meals served in September and October 2020, and received a total of $5.3

million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds since its creation in September 2020. Id., ¶ 37,

38. The Affidavit notes that Mr. Ahmed purchased a car for approximately $40,000, using funds

traceable to the ASA account. Id. at ¶ 97. The Affidavit states in conclusory fashion that ASA

was “a company set up to fraudulently receive, disburse and misappropriate Federal Child

Nutrition Program funds.” Id. at ¶ 99. The Affidavit maintains, also in conclusory fashion, that

“almost none of [the money received by ASA and other companies listed in the Affidavit] was

used to feed children.” Id. at 7.

       Attachment B to the Affidavit set forth the particular items Google was required to

disclose to the government, and a list of the items the government was permitted to seize. Thus,

under the Search Warrant, Google was required to disclose, inter alia, “[t]he contents of all e-

mails associated with the account, including stored or preserved copies of e-mails sent to and
         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 6




from the account, draft e-mails, the source and destination addresses associated with each e-mail,

the date and time at which each e-mail was sent, and the size and length of each e-mail” and

“[a]ll records or other information stored at any time by an individual using the account,

including address books, contact and buddy lists, calendar data, pictures, and files.” See

Affidavit, Attachment B at 1, 2.

       The government was permitted to seize from the data provided by Google all information

constituting “fruits, contraband, evidence and instrumentalities of violations of 18 United States

Code, Sections 1341, 1343, 1349, 1956 and 1957.” Id. at 3. This included, inter alia, “[a]ny and

all records related to the purchase or ownership of real estate, vehicles or other items using

federal child nutrition program funds;” “[a]ny records or communications related to the

obtaining, secreting, transfer, and/or concealment of money;” “[a]ll emails indicating the email

account owner's state of mind as it relates to the crime under investigation;” “[a]ll emails that

identify co-conspirators in the scheme to defraud consumers;” and “[a]ll emails which evidence

the planning and execution of the scheme to defraud.” Id. at 4.

       In a certification signed on July 14, 2022, FBI Agent Wilmer stated that 22,558 emails

were seized from the abdikahim.ahmed@gmail.com account, of which 3,634 were “Culled as

Relevant.”

                                          ARGUMENT

                   ALL EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A RESULT OF A SEARCH
                  WARRANT EXECUTED ON THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT OF
                    ABDIKAHIM.AHMED@GMAIL.COM SHOULD BE
                                   SUPPRESSED

       The Fourth Amendment was intended as a bulwark against “the ‘general warrant’

abhorred by the colonists” and protects against “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s

personal belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971). Its overarching
         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 6




purpose is to ensure that “those searches deemed necessary should be as limited as possible.” Id.

To achieve its goal, the Warrants Clause requires as a threshold matter that there be probable

cause that a crime has been – or is about to be committed. United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d

554, 557 (8th Cir.2007) (“The Fourth Amendment requires a showing of probable cause before a

search warrant may be issued.”). In addition, it forbids overbreadth and requires particularity,

two related but legally distinct constitutional objections to a warrant. Thus, a search warrant

must “describe and identify the items to be seized with particularity.” United States v. Cartier,

543 F.3d 442, 447 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Nieman, 520 F.3d 834, 839 (8th

Cir.2008)). The breadth requirement limits searches “to the specific areas and things for which

there is probable cause to search.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987).

       The constitutional standard for particularity of description in a search warrant is met if

the description is sufficiently definite so as to enable the officer with the warrant to reasonably

ascertain and identify the place to be searched and the objects to be seized. Steele v. United

States, 267 U.S. 498, 503-04 (1925); United States v. Johnson, 541 F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th

Cir.1976). The underlying measure of adequacy in the description is whether, given the

specificity in the warrant, a violation of personal rights is likely. Johnson, 541 F.2d at 1313. As

the Supreme Court recognized, document searches pose unique Fourth Amendment concerns:

               [T]here are grave dangers inherent in executing a warrant
               authorizing a search and seizure of a person’s papers that are not
               necessarily present in executing a warrant to search for physical
               objects whose relevance is more easily ascertainable. In searches
               for papers, it is certain that some innocuous documents will be
               examined, at least cursorily, in order to determine whether they
               are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized . . .
               [R]esponsible officials, including judicial officials, must take care
               to assure that they are conducted in a manner that minimizes
               unwarranted intrusions upon privacy.
         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 6




Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. at 482 n.11 (1976). “The dawn of the Information Age has

only heightened those concerns.” United States v. Cioffi, 668 F. Supp. 2d 385, 392 (E.D.N.Y.

2009). As the Tenth Circuit explains:

               The modern development of the personal computer and its ability
               to store and intermingle a huge array of one’s personal papers in a
               single place increases law enforcement’s ability to conduct a wide-
               ranging search into a person’s private affairs, and accordingly
               makes the particularity requirement that much more important.

United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127, 1132 (10th Cir. 2009).

       The Search Warrant and resulting search met none of these criteria.

       First, the Search Warrant application lacked probable cause. “Probable cause exists, if

under the totality of the circumstances, a showing of facts can be made sufficient to create a fair

probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.” United States v.

Wallace, 550 F.3d 729, 732 (8th Cir.2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, at best, the probable cause determination consisted of little more than speculation that a

crime actually occurred. In essence, the government appears to be asserting that large profits in a

restaurant operation necessarily indicate fraud.

       Second, the Search Warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity. The Search Warrant

authorized the seizure of the entire contents of the Google Account, including draft emails and

lists of contacts, and as such, it essentially authorized whole-sale rummaging through the account

user’s personal communications and affairs, unlimited by scope or time.

       Third, the search conducted pursuant to the Search Warrant exceeded its authorized

scope. See United States v. Weinbender, 109 F.3d 1327, 1329–30 (8th Cir.1997) (“the manner in

which a warrant is executed is always subject to judicial review to ensure that it does not traverse

the general Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonableness”) (quoting Hummel–Jones
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 193 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 6




v. Strope, 25 F.3d 647, 650 (8th Cir.1994)). The government seized the entire contents of the

Google Account, although the warrant only authorized seizure of items relevant to fraud charges.

          Finally, the government may not rely on the good faith exception announced in United

States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 921 (1984), because the agents’ reliance on the Search Warrant was

objectively unreasonable.

          At the very least, a hearing should be held pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154

(1978).

          Mr. Ahmed joins in the arguments made in the motions filed by co-defendants to

suppress the fruits of the Search Warrant or other search warrants issued in this case to the extent

they are relevant to this motion. In addition, he reserves the right to supplement this motion

based on discovery provided to counsel this week and any future discovery.

                                          CONCLUSION

                 For the foregoing reasons, defendant Abdihakim Ahmed respectfully requests that

the Court grant his motion to suppress the fruits of the Search Warrant.

Date: Minneapolis, Minnesota                          Respectfully Submitted.
      December 15, 2023




                                                      JANEANNE MURRAY
                                                      Registration No. 0394887
                                                      Murray Law LLC
                                                      Attorneys for Abdihakim Ali Ahmed
                                                      The Flour Exchange Building
                                                      310 Fourth Avenue South
                                                      Minneapolis, MN 55415
                                                      Tel. (612) 339-5160


File and source

File

193.pdf

Size

182,322 bytes

SHA-256

c573f006546f4fa9bc3f2c1da74b79c58d1e5caf9204e02c01b8c7990e03b381

Our copy

193.pdf

Original

archive.org