Lee Defense Challenges Search Warrant
All evidence seized
By Richard Benke/AP

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—When FBI agents seized the short stories of Guy de Maupassant and the plays of Tennessee Williams from Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee’s home, they acted without the restraint that the search warrant should have imposed, Lee’s lawyers say.

The attorneys argued April 17 that the search warrant was illegally broad, and they asked U.S. District Judge John Conway “to suppress all items obtained as a result of the search ..., all fruits of that evidence and all other evidence, tangible or intangible, obtained directly or indirectly as a result of that search.”

Lee, 60, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Taiwan, is charged with downloading materials from secured computers onto unsecured computers and onto several computer tapes. Agents say seven of the tapes remain missing; Lee insists those tapes were destroyed.

Lee, fired by the lab last year, could face life in prison if convicted of all 59 counts. Trial is tentatively set for Nov. 6.

A hearing on the motion was set for 9:30 a.m. June 7.

The warrant that was used to search Lee’s White Rock home April 10, 1999, failed to include specific descriptions of the place to be searched or items to be seized and “failed to include the required statement regarding how the property to be seized related to any alleged criminal activity,” the defense motion said.

The search warrant here blatantly violated this well-established prohibition against general warrants,’’ the defense said in an accompanying memorandum to Conway.

“Basically, the warrant gave unfettered discretion to the executing officers to seize anything,’’ said Lee’s attorneys, Mark Holscher, John Cline and Nancy Hollander.

Besides the De Maupassant and Williams works, items seized included the address book of Lee’s daughter, Alberta, telephone numbers of a church group, the membership list of the Los Alamos Chinese American Society, Lee’s school notebooks and diaries, children’s photo albums, personal correspondence, Lee’s Ph.D. thesis published in 1966, letters between Lee and his professors in the early 1970s and computer printouts from 1977, among other things, the lawyers said.

“All I can say is that we oppose the motion, and that opposition will be reflected in the response we ultimately file,’’ Gorence said.

Lee’s attorneys said the FBI warrant failed to specify that the place to be searched was Lee’s home. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has long required that a warrant “state particularly that it authorizes the search of someone’s home,” they said.

That’s a Fourth Amendment requirement, they added.

“As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant,’’ the lawyers said, quoting a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The Lee warrant said items to be seized “include but are not limited to records, documents and materials including those used to facilitate communications, electronic data and computer equipment and peripherals.” The warrant thus disqualified itself, the lawyers said.

“By its very terms, the warrant was ‘not limited,’” they said.