An indicia clause in a SW for evidence of ownership of the premises (“any items tending to show dominion and control of the” premises searched) permitted seizure of a laptop computer. “We agree with the trial court that a laptop computer logically could serve as a container for information tending to show occupancy and control of the residence.” People v. Balint, 138 Cal. App. 4th 200 (4th Dist. March 30, 2006) (Note: This is a dangerous case: Does it mean that a laptop can be seized under virtually any search warrant? If so, what is going to be the scope of search of that laptop? How can this be limited? A child porn search is limited to image files, but a this literally permits a general search of the computer. Computer searches cases are going to get ugly from here on. Count on it.)
Search of probationer’s home without individualized suspicion while he was handcuffed was unreasonable. The defendant specifically refused consent although his probation agreement required it. “Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence on the basis that defendant consented to the search condition of his MSR agreement. Rather, the trial court must evaluate whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant had narcotics or guns in his home or otherwise violated the terms of his MSR so that the search was justified at its inception under the fourth amendment. Therefore, we reverse the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and remand for a new suppression hearing consistent with our directive in this opinion.” People v. Wilson, 364 Ill. App. 3d 762, 301 Ill. Dec. 743, 847 N.E.2d 753 (1st Dist. March 29, 2006, released for publication May 24, 2006).
Officer’s knowledge of purchase of large quantity of psuedo on the day in question plus his knowledge of the defendant’s pattern of past purchases equals PC. State v. Hugo, 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 253 (March 29, 2006).*
Custodial arrest of out-of-town traffic offenders under longstanding local policy led to search of vehicle. While the search likely was without PC, it was inevitably discovered because an inventory would follow. State v. Jackson, 186 S.W.3d 873 (Mo. App. W.D. March 28, 2006).*
State seized computer during a murder investigation where the suspects were lovers who met over the Internet and were convicted of murder of his wife under a broad consent to search and seize granted by the defendant. Weeks later, the state sought and obtained a SW for the hard drive while the computer was still in police custody. The defendant moved to suppress contending that the search had to be reasonably contemporaneous with the seizure and for noncompliance with state rule 41. The court held, however, that the consent to search and seize was sufficient to get into the hard drive without the SW. State v. Brooks, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 259 (March 20, 2006).
In an unpublished opinion, the Houston TX Court of Appeals held that defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to the search of a nonpassword protected computer that both of them used, even though the computer belonged to the defendant. Hebert v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2539 (Houston (14th Dist.) March 30, 2006). A substituted opinion was rendered December 28, 2006, Hebert v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 11070 (Tex. App. — Houston (14th Dist.) December 28, 2006), coming to the same result.
Incriminating nature of shell casings found on defendant’s property was not immediately apparent, so plain view did not apply. (However, it was harmless on this record.) State v. Partin, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 262 (March 21, 2006).
