CA9: CP search warrant authorized second and third searches five years after the first search because gov’t still had computer

A second and third search of defendant’s computer for child pornography five years after the first one when defendant didn’t take a plea offer. That search was within the scope of the original warrant because the government still had the computer. United States v. Johnston, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8620 (9th Cir. May 26, 2015) (see Treatise §§ 51.15 & 58.34).

During execution of a search warrant, the evidentiary value of other things was immediately apparent and the fact that others in the search team saw the same thing was not a violation of the warrant. United States v. Ogans, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8676 (9th Cir. May 26, 2015).*

“The district court properly granted summary judgment on Khurana’s Fourth Amendment claims, because Khurana failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether it would have been clear to reasonable inspectors that a warrantless search was unlawful, given prior written consent to unannounced inspections, and a subsequent verbal revocation of consent. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (explaining two part test for qualified immunity).” Khurana v. North Central District Health Dept., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8666 (9th Cir. May 26, 2015).*