CA3: Where search was limited, alleged overbreadth of SW was less important

The affidavit for the search warrant showed probable cause, so the search can’t be suppressed. Moreover, the officer acted reasonably and gets qualified immunity. The search itself wasn’t as broad as the warrant was argued to allow, so the search was reasonable. Hart v. Gordon, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21147 (3d Cir. November 6, 2014):

After the magistrate approved the warrant, Gordon executed her search with two other officers, seizing possessions that were contemplated in the affidavit. Thus, to the extent the failure to incorporate the affidavit left the warrant impermissibly overbroad, Gordon’s narrower, unincorporated affidavit permissibly modified it, because the actual search that occurred was “restricted to the narrower scope of the affidavit,” rather than the more generalized warrant. In sum, given the government attorney’s and magistrate’s approval of the warrant, the search’s restriction to the items in the particularized affidavit, and Gordon’s consistent deposition testimony, it is clear that Gordon acted reasonably. As such, she was entitled to qualified immunity.

Even were we to reach the merits of the claim, we would affirm the District Court’s finding that no constitutional right was violated. In addition to their argument that the search warrant was impermissibly overbroad, Appellants argue that Gordon’s failure to give Pizzola the warrant and affidavit during the search rendered it unconstitutional. This does not change our analysis, as “neither the Fourth Amendment nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41” requires that “the executing officer … present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search.”

Hart also argues that Gordon’s subsequent search of the hard drive of his computer was unconstitutional. We disagree. We have recognized that “because criminals can–and often do–hide, mislabel, or manipulate files to conceal criminal activity, a broad, expansive search of the hard drive may be required.” While a broad search of a hard drive still may, in some cases, be overbroad, Hart points to nothing in the record indicating that an overbroad search actually occurred. Accordingly, even if Gordon were not entitled to qualified immunity, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and the District Court correctly dismissed the claim.