E.D.Cal.: SW for “all computers” of a computer hacker was not general on these facts

The government developed substantial probable cause to believe defendant was involved in computer hacking in the district and elsewhere. When the search warrant issued, it was for all electronic equipment and media in his house, and the court finds it not too general, considering the fact the crime was computer hacking. Also, the warrant was not stale. It was logical to conclude the information would still be on defendant’s computers because he “was proud of his work” as a hacker. United States v. Keys, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38584 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2014):

CDT III does not dictate suppression in this case. Here, unlike in Tamura, the warrant authorized the seizure of the electronic media for off-site examination based on the agent’s description of the difficulties of conducting an on-site review. Defendant complains that nothing in the affidavit suggests he was a sophisticated user, likely to have encrypted or booby-trapped any of the files agents sought. ECF No. 23 at 20.2 However, the affidavit did describe the ways in which even a “run-of-the mill Mac user” could disguise files through the use of innocuous filenames or extensions.

Moreover, as there is no evidence the government could have known what computer equipment Keys possessed apart from his Mac or where he might store the information about his exchanges with Anonymous, the government’s description of the things to be seized was sufficiently particular. Keys does not complain that the description of the files sought was too generic.

Finally, the affidavit described Keys’ computer as the means of committing the alleged crime: he joined the internetfed chat room by using his computer and he kept logs of this interactions with Anonymous. Thus, authorizing the seizure of this equipment was justified.

. . .

Defendant also argues the affidavit relies on the generalization that a person proficient with computers will retain storage media for a long time. But the magistrate judge could rely on his own common-sense determination that people hold onto the tools by which they make their living or pursue their passion or vocation. As the affidavit showed defendant used his computer to update his website and as part of his profession, it was logical to assume he would still possess a computer and the means of storing information relating to his profession. See, e.g., United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 574 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “business records are a type of evidence that defy staleness”); see also United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 915, 184 L. Ed. 2d 703 (2013) (“Computers and computer equipment are ‘not the type of evidence that rapidly dissipates or degrades.'”) (quoting United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512, 529 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 1783, 179 L. Ed. 2d 656 (2011)).

Defendant further argues the affidavit makes crude generalizations about journalists. However, the affidavit details defendant’s periodic reference to his interactions with Anonymous, including his May 2012 reference to the book We Are Anonymous, which relied upon him as a source. From this information the magistrate judge could reasonably conclude defendant was indeed proud of his work and so would retain his source material.

See also: There was probable cause and nexus for defendants house and computers. An email to defendant about the crime under investigation that involved computer storage of pictures of a nude minor was sufficient to seize his computers for the pictures. State v. Hosseinipour, 2014-Ohio-1090, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 1004 (5th Dist. March 18, 2014).*