D.N.M.: Flexibility permitted in computer file searches because of ease of hiding things

A computer search warrant isn’t overbroad because it doesn’t specify the files to be searched with complete particularity. It isn’t feasible or reasonable to require it because file names and dates can be changed to hide things. United States v. Loera, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160571 (D. N.M. October 20, 2014):

Under the circumstances of the case, the agents had no information with which they could have provided further clarity in the search warrant — for example, by specifying the extensions, dates, or names of the files that they would need to search to uncover evidence of electronic mail hijacking and computer fraud. They had no idea what computer equipment or electronic devices that Loera would have used to access his electronic mail accounts, the hijacked electronic mail account, or the Domain, or where he could have concealed evidence that he had done so. Evidence of electronic mail hijacking and computer fraud could have been hidden on CDs, external hard drives, USB drives, cellular telephones, desktop or laptop computers, DVDs, or floppy disks. Usernames, passwords, electronic mail transmissions, or attachments to hijacked electronic mail transmissions could be saved in the form of electronic mail files (e.g., .msg, .dbx, .eml, and .mbox extensions), word processing files (e.g., .doc, .docx, .wpd, .rtf, .txt, and .wps extensions), spreadsheet files (e.g., .xls or .xlsx extensions), database files (e.g., accdb, .mdb, .ldb, and .wdb extensions), internet files (e.g., .html, .mhtml, .xml extensions), or image files (e.g., .jpg, .bmp, .gif, and .tiff extensions), to name just a few.

Moreover, the agents had no way of knowing whether Loera had changed the extensions of incriminating files to conceal their real file types. … [citations omitted]

The agents also had no way to know the names of the files in which Loera saved incriminating evidence — making a prospective limitation on the names of files that could be searched impractical. … [citations omitted]

The agents also could not feasibly limit their search to a particular date range. Both Cravens and Nishida testified that the last-modified and created dates on files could be changed either intentionally or unintentionally. … [citations omitted]

Moreover, although the Tenth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue, multiple Tenth Circuit cases have found search warrants sufficiently particular despite not specifying a date range. … [citations omitted]

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Overbreadth, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.