United States v. You Bin Yang and You Lin Yang

Citations: 478 F.3d 832; 99 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1327; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5261; 2007 WL 675507Docket: 06-3017, 06-3095

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 7, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On October 30, 2002, You Bin Yang reported a burglary to the Eau Claire Police Department (ECPD), claiming items were stolen from his home. Officer Brian Schneider, processing the scene, requested and obtained Yang's permission to take five notebooks for fingerprint analysis. At the time, Yang and his brother, You Lin Yang, were under IRS investigation for tax fraud related to their ownership of a restaurant. Following the police investigation, Yang sought the return of his notebooks, which contained financial records in Chinese. Sergeant Eric Larsen, aware of the IRS investigation, reviewed the notebooks and began copying their contents before fingerprinting was conducted. He informed Yang about potential damage to the writing from fingerprint powder but did not disclose that he had already started copying one of the notebooks. Yang subsequently authorized Larsen to copy the contents of all notebooks and later retrieved the 2002 notebook. The Yang brothers filed a motion to suppress the notebooks' contents, which the district court denied. They entered conditional guilty pleas, preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, which was ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Larsen informed IRS Special Agent Steven Makowski about accounting notebooks seized from Yang's residence. Makowski secured a grand jury subpoena on November 4, 2002, for these notebooks, which he later translated and found to contain evidence of tax fraud. On December 13, 2005, a grand jury indicted Yang and his brother for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, filing false tax returns, and structuring currency transactions to evade reporting requirements. The brothers attempted to suppress the evidence from the notebooks, claiming a violation of Yang's Fourth Amendment rights due to an unlawful search by the East Chicago Police Department (ECPD). 

The magistrate judge denied their motion, ruling that Yang had no expectation of privacy in the notebooks after relinquishing them to the police, a decision upheld by the district court. On May 2, the defendants entered conditional guilty pleas, preserving their right to appeal the suppression ruling, and were sentenced to 34 months in prison on July 12.

The brothers contended that the district court erred in denying their suppression motion, asserting a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The government countered that Yang lost his expectation of privacy upon giving the notebooks to Officer Schneider. The court reviews legal determinations regarding suppression motions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless searches where an individual has a "legitimate expectation of privacy," which consists of whether the individual exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and if that expectation is recognized as reasonable by society. A defendant must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy to challenge a search, and merely hoping for privacy does not suffice.

Courts evaluating subjective expectations of privacy consider actions taken by individuals to conceal items from public scrutiny. For instance, in MacWade v. Kelly, it was noted that carrying items in a closed, opaque bag indicates a subjective expectation of privacy. In contrast, in United States v. Mackey, the court found no expectation of privacy in a paper bag, which is easily damaged and its contents readily visible. Similarly, in People v. Sutherland, the defendant's lack of restrictions on his clothes at a hospital indicated no expectation of privacy.

In Yang's case, he did not demonstrate a subjective expectation of privacy regarding his notebooks. He allowed Officer Schneider to take the notebooks to the police station without imposing any access limitations, did not keep the covers and contents separate, and permitted copies to be made. Consequently, Yang's lack of affirmative steps to protect his privacy precludes him from succeeding in his claim.

Yang argues that, despite the lawful possession of his notebooks by the police, Officer Larsen lacked the right to search their contents, citing Walter v. United States. In Walter, the Supreme Court affirmed the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy in securely wrapped and sealed films, contrasting this with Yang's case, where he took no similar precautions to protect his notebooks.

Yang argues that the case is similar to LeClair v. Hart, where plaintiffs faced dual investigations from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the IRS. In LeClair, IRS agents accompanied FWS agents during a home search without identifying themselves, leading to the unauthorized search of financial records not covered by the FWS warrant. This resulted in the plaintiffs' indictment for tax evasion and subsequent lawsuit. The court found a constitutional violation due to the plaintiffs' legitimate expectation of privacy in their financial documents, which were searched without consent. In contrast, Yang lacked any subjective expectation of privacy in the notebooks, making the objective inquiry unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.