N.D.Ga.: A common sense reading of the SW shows it was not overbroad

“‘Whether evidence is within a search warrant’s scope requires not a ‘hypertechnical’ analysis, but a “common-sense, and realistic” one.’ United States v. Okorie, 425 Fed. Appx. 166, 169 n.1 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2011) (quoting United States v. Srivastava, 540 F.3d 277, 291 (4th Cir. 2008)); see also United States v. Hager, 710 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing whether agents acted within the scope of a warrant and holding that ‘[t]he broad language of the warrant must be given a practical, rather than a hypertechnical, interpretation that is cabined by the purpose for which it issued’). Therefore, the executing agents did not exceed the scope of the warrant’s authorization.” United States v. Chan, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176208 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 16, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18516 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 12, 2016).