Also known as: fruit of crime · fruits of crime · instrumentality of crime · instrumentalities of crime · criminal forfeiture · proceeds of crime
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Property connected to criminal activity that may be seized pursuant to a warrant. Fruits consist of items obtained or derived from the offense. Instrumentalities are objects employed to perpetrate it.
Federal agents obtained a warrant to search Bob's warehouse after learning he altered serial numbers on stolen phones. Officers seized the entire stock of five hundred devices because altered units could not be distinguished on site from legitimate inventory. The magistrate had authorized seizure of the commingled goods as potential fruits of crime.
After a client confessed to a robbery, the lawyer removed the stolen cash and weapon from the client's apartment. He placed both items in a new safe deposit box to keep them from investigators. The court held that the items remained fruits and instrumentalities of the crime unprotected by privilege.
Officers entered an apartment without a warrant and observed drug ledgers and cash proceeds on a table. They later obtained a valid warrant based on an independent source and seized the items. The court upheld the seizure because the fruits of crime were properly obtained under the later warrant.
In January 1981, the New York Drug Enforcement Task Force received information indicating that Andres Segura and Luz Marina Colon probably were trafficking in cocaine from their New York apartment. Acting on this information, Task Force agents maintained continuing surveillance over petitioners until their arrest on February 12, 1981. On February 9, agents observed a meeting between Segura and Enrique Rivudalla-Vidal. Three days later, Segura telephoned Rivudalla-Vidal and agreed to provide him with cocaine at a designated fast-food restaurant in Queens. Rivudalla-Vidal and Esther Parra arrived at the restaurant at 5 p.m. Agents observed Colon deliver a bulky package to Parra in the parking lot. Agents stopped the couple as they were about to enter Rivudalla-Vidal's apartment, found Parra in possession of cocaine, and arrested both. Rivudalla-Vidal cooperated, admitted purchasing the cocaine from Segura, and informed agents that Segura was to call him at approximately 10 o'clock that evening. Between 6:30 and 7 p.m., agents received authorization from an Assistant United States Attorney to arrest Segura and Colon and to secure the premises because a search warrant probably could not be obtained until the following day. At about 7:30 p.m., agents arrived at petitioners' apartment and established external surveillance. At 11:15 p.m., Segura entered the lobby and was arrested. Agents took him to the third-floor apartment, knocked on the door, and entered with him when Colon appeared. Agents arrested Colon and three other persons found in the apartment. They conducted a limited security check and observed in plain view a triple-beam scale, jars of lactose, and numerous small cellophane bags. None of these items was disturbed. Two agents remained in the apartment awaiting the warrant. Because of administrative delay, the warrant application was not presented to the Magistrate until 5 p.m. the next day. The warrant was issued and the search was performed at approximately 6 p.m., some 19 hours after the agents' initial entry. In the search pursuant to the warrant, agents discovered almost three pounds of cocaine, 18 rounds of .38-caliber ammunition, more than $50,000 cash, and records of narcotics transactions. Segura and Colon were indicted for conspiring to distribute cocaine and for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. They moved to suppress all evidence seized from the apartment. The District Court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA magistrate may authorize seizure of evidence of a crime, contraband or fruits of crime, property designed for use intended for use or used in committing a crime, or a person to be arrested or unlawfully restrained.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege protects only communications. Physical evidence such as stolen money or a weapon used in a robbery remains outside the privilege when an attorney removes or conceals it without lawful justification.
Supporting sources
Only when the assets qualify as property designed for intended for or used in committing the crime. Routine use in lawful operations does not convert standard equipment into seizable instrumentalities.
Supporting sources
Yes when on-site distinction is impractical and probable cause supports a substantial connection between the collection and criminal activity. Officers may seize the whole group and sort later.
Supporting sources
…one. But we allowed the seizure nonetheless because otherwise the occupants of the car could have removed the "instruments or fruits of crime" before the search. Id., at 51, n. 9 . The Court allowed the warrantless seizure to protect the evidence from destruction even though there was no immediate fear that the evidence was in…