Seizing flash drives which were outside of the warrant requires their suppression. Failure to include the attachment in a warrant left on the premises is only a rule violation, not a constitutional one. United States v. Rojas-Camilo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34610 (D.Mass. March 17, 2016):
Finally, while the seizure of the flash drives exceeded the scope of the warrant (the government does not disagree), where portions of a warrant are invalid for lack of probable cause or particularity, “the infirmity of part of a warrant requires the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to that part of the warrant … but does not require the suppression of anything described in the valid portions of the warrant (or lawfully seized — on plain view grounds, for example — during their execution).” United States v. Fitzgerald, 724 F.2d 633, 637 (8th Cir. 1983) (en banc). The First Circuit is firmly within the partial suppression camp. See United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571, 580 n.7 (1st Cir. 1990) (“The general rule in this circuit requires suppression of only the evidence seized without probable cause [or here, proper authorization], while allowing use of the rest.”).