| 2. VIOLATION(s) |
| 3. PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED |
| |
a. |
Identified (address and location description) |
| |
|
i. |
Business or corporate office(s) |
| |
|
ii. |
Residence |
| |
|
iii. |
Other (specify/describe) |
| |
b. |
Are owned or controlled by |
| |
|
i. |
Accountant |
| |
|
ii. |
Lawyer |
| |
|
iii. |
Physician |
| |
|
iv. |
Public official (federal, state, local, or foreign) or political candidate |
| |
|
v. |
Member of the clergy |
| |
|
vi. |
News media official (electronic or printed) |
| |
|
vii. |
Labor union official |
| |
|
viii. |
Official of an organization deemed to be exempt under I.R.C. § 501(c) or (d) |
| |
|
ix. |
Disinterested third parties |
| 4. AFFIDAVIT IDENTIFIES IN NONCONCLUSORY TERMS KEY FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE: |
| |
a. |
Specified crime(s) has been (or is being) committed |
| |
|
i. |
All elements of the offense established |
| |
|
ii. |
If conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) alleged, two or more persons are party to the agreement to commit the offense or defraud the
U.S.
|
| |
b. |
There is evidence of the crime, e.g., records |
| |
|
i. |
Records sought |
| |
|
|
1. |
have nexus to crime alleged and |
| |
|
|
2. |
are described with requisite particularity (No laundry lists; no general subpoena-type lists; Appropriate accounting terminology
used when describing books and records)
|
| |
|
ii. |
Clearly defined temporal limitations |
| |
|
|
1. |
Tax years/periods and/or calendar years at issue |
| |
|
|
2. |
Tailored to statute of limitations |
| |
|
iii. |
Records clearly limited to targets and related entities specifically mentioned in affidavit |
| |
|
iv. |
Computers |
| |
|
|
1. |
Computer expert justification for seizure |
| |
|
|
2. |
Computer expert procedure to be followed |
| |
|
|
3. |
Computer system/components identified w/particularity |
| |
c. |
Evidence sought is presently on the premises to be searched |
| |
|
i. |
Observations of Informant/Witness/Agent or Admissions |
| |
|
|
1. |
Reliability |
| |
|
|
2. |
Specificity |
| |
|
|
3. |
Not over 6 months old |
| |
|
ii. |
Accurate description/depiction of where the evidence is located and how maintained |
| |
|
iii. |
Staleness |
| |
|
|
1. |
History of owner’s possession of evidence/records sought |
| |
|
|
2. |
Relevant retention period(s) for evidence/records sought |
| |
|
|
3. |
Likelihood evidence/records sought are still on premises to be searched |
| 5. INFORMANTS AND WITNESSES |
| |
a. |
Basis of Knowledge/Credibility/Reliability |
| |
|
i. |
Extent of personal, actual knowledge of relevant information |
| |
|
ii. |
Criminal/informant history |
| |
|
iii. |
Informant reward claim |
| |
b. |
Independent, substantial corroboration |
| 6. REASONS WHY LESS INTRUSIVE MEANS (E.G., SUMMONS, SUBPOENA) ARE NOT BEING USED ARE ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED |
| 7. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS |
| |
a. |
Privileges and privilege team |
| |
b. |
Use of permeated-with-fraud theory |
| |
c. |
Other (specify/describe) |
| 8. MEMO TO FILE |
| |
a. |
I have reviewed this search warrant application for legal sufficiency and compliance with IRS policy and procedure and conclude: |
| |
|
i. |
There are sufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe: |
| |
|
|
1. |
The target(s) has committed (or is committing) the alleged violations (specify) |
| |
|
|
2. |
The records sought are likely to contain evidence of such crimes. |
| |
|
|
3. |
The records sought are presently located on the premises to be searched. |
| |
|
ii. |
There is sufficient explanation as to why other less intrusive means to obtain this evidence/records are not being utilized. |
