M.D.La.: Year long seizure of a hard drive without getting a warrant was unreasonable

A computer tech was hired to transfer information from an old hard drive to a new computer in 2007, and he stumbled upon child pornography and called the FBI. They met, and he brought the hard drive. Defendant’s email address matched persons who had downloaded from a CP website the FBI had seized information from in 2005: illegal.CP. A search warrant was obtained for the hard drive and it was seized, but it wasn’t searched until 2010. First, the initial search was a private search, up to the point that the government told him to keep it then he became a government actor in retaining it. Second, retaining the hard drive was justified under the circumstances. Defendant was a lawyer, and if he got wind of what the government was doing, destruction of the evidence was likely, so the exigent circumstances exception applied. The 13 month delay in getting a warrant to search the hard drive was unreasonable. United States v. Jarman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146202 (M.D. La. October 14, 2014):

Turning to the remaining factors, a thirteen-month delay between seizing the hard drive and securing the warrant is a lengthy duration; in Howe, the Second Circuit acknowledged this. 545 F. App’x at 65. Additionally, there is no evidence that Mr. Jarman consented to the seizure or even knew that the seizure of the hard drive occurred. Further, the Government has stated definitively that it “is not contending that any delay was justified due [Special Agent] Tedder’s case load,” “the size of his office/geographic territory,” “the recusal by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana,” or “the need to establish a ‘taint team’ in conjunction with the searches due to the defendant being a practicing attorney.” (Doc. 161 at 7 n.5). Further, the Court finds that the nature of this investigation, specifically the fact that the Defendant was a practicing attorney in Baton Rouge, did not justify such an extended delay in obtaining a search warrant.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the government’s yearlong, warrantless seizure of the Western Digital hard drive was unreasonable, and thus, violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court must suppress the hard drive as a result of the constitutional violation.