CA11: Overbreadth challenge fails for computers on wireless at a fire station

Defendant was a fireman who was suspected of actively downloading child pornography via a P2P connection at work. Certain representations in the affidavit about the investigators trying to pickup the wireless signal outside the station and who was on duty then, even if recklessly false [and they really didn’t rise to that] weren’t a Franks violation and not material. The warrant for computers in the fire station using wireless was not overbroad considering the circumstances. The investigators really couldn’t say more. United States v. Rousseau, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18039 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2015):

To the extent the descriptions did not identify a specific location within the Station or specific item (such as a particular computer or cell phone), they were as specific as the circumstances and nature of the activity being investigated would permit.5 The agents were investigating the downloading and sharing of child pornography using an IP address registered to the Station and an open wireless network accessible inside the Station. The investigators did not know which or how many Station employees might be involved in the activity, much less which computers or electronic storage devices in the Station were being used. The warrant made clear that a search of the computers required the seizure of “most or all computer items” to perform the search thoroughly, and that “on-site evidentiary previews” would be conducted to minimize the burden on individuals and devices that were not involved in the illegal activity. The warrant also only authorized the seizure of items that were “[e]vidence of possession, receipt, and distribution of child pornography.”