United States v. Waddell

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STACY PAUL WADDELL

Case No. CR415-095

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

November 20, 2015

ORDER

Indicted for, inter alia, wire and mail fraud, doc. 89, defendant Stacy Paul Waddell moves to suppress evidence against him: (1) data obtained from a government agent's search of a still extant website (http://pmxrefinery.com); and (2) data obtained from two envelopes mailed by BB&T to a company Waddell says he controlled: Southern Precious Metals, Inc. ("SMPI"). Docs. 57, 63, & 101.

The government argues, inter alia, that Waddell lacks standing to litigate SMPI's rights because shareholders (even controlling shareholders) lack standing to assert a corporation's Fourth Amendment rights. Doc. 98at 19-20.¹ But it does not argue that about the pmxrefinery.com search. Id. at 1-19.

Yet, at the October 22, 2015 hearing in this case (doc. 70) the Court heard testimony from web designer/administrator Heidi Peterson -- hired by Waddell to set up pmxrefinery.com -- "[t]hat the name of the company that we set the domain up under [pmxrefinery.com] was Global Gold." Global Gold Inc., has been and remains an active Georgia company. See attached (Georgia Secretary of State corporate record showing "Waddell, S.P." as its "Registered Agent"). Within 7 days of the date this Order is served, the parties shall furnish any further evidence bearing upon the true ownership of the pmxrefinery.com website.² If necessary, the Court willreopen the evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes regarding this narrow question.

SO ORDERED, this 20th day of November, 2015.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1. In case law binding on this Court it was explained:

When a man chooses to avail himself of the privilege of doing business as a corporation, even though he is its sole shareholder, he may not vicariously take on the privilege of the corporation under the Fourth Amendment; documents which he could have protected from seizure, if they had been his own, may be used against him, no matter how they were obtained from the corporation. Its wrongs are not his wrongs; its immunity is not his immunity.

United States v. Britt, 508 F.2d 1052, 1055 (5th Cir. 1975), quoting Lagow v. United States, 159 F.2d 245, 246 (2d Cir. 1946); accord, United States v. Vicknair, 610 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1980) ("When corporate property is seized or searched, an individual cannot assert the corporation's Fourth Amendment rights absent a showing that he had an independent privacy interest in the goods seized or the area searched."); Williams v. Kunze, 806 F.2d 594, 599 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Unless the shareholder, officer or employee can demonstrate a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in the records seized, he lacks standing to challenge...