S.D.Fla.: GFE applies to overbreadth questions, too

A child pornography warrant was not overbroad as to the computers and a Dropbox account. Even it if was, the offending portion would be severed. Here, nothing was seized under the allegedly overbroad phrase. And, even if it was, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Darbouze, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87059 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2014):

If the description of items to be seized pursuant to a search warrant is overly broad, the remedy is to sever those portions of the warrant lacking probable cause, not to invalidate the entire warrant. United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 734-35 (5th Cir. 1981) (“hold[ing] that in the usual case the district judge should sever the infirm portion of the search warrant from so much of the warrant as passes constitutional muster.”). Here, the agents did not recover any evidence responsive to paragraph 12 of Attachment “B” to the search warrant for the residence. Thus, none of the evidence obtained from the execution of the search warrant of the residence should be suppressed. Moreover, the Dropbox search warrant does not violate the particularity requirement and none of the evidence obtained from Dropbox should be suppressed.

Even if, arguendo, the agents had recovered evidence responsive to paragraph 12, that evidence should still not be suppressed. In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 (1984), the Supreme Court established a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “courts generally should not render inadmissable evidence obtained by police officers acting in reliance upon a search warrant that is ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.” United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 (1984)). Officers do not act in objective good faith if the warrant is so overly broad on its face that the executing officers could not reasonably have presumed it to be valid. United States v. Accardo, 749 F.2d 1477, 1481 (11th Cir. 1985). The search warrants at issue in this case were not so facially deficient that a law enforcement agent would not be expected to reasonably rely on the warrant.