CA5: The length of computer search didn’t make it unreasonable where def was a lawyer and taint team had to do first review

Defendant was a lawyer who took his computer in to have the data on the hard drive switched to a new computer. The service guy doing the job noticed file names suggestive of child pornography and he saw at least one video file of child pornography. He reported it to DoJ which already had defendant on their radar as a child pornography consumer. They looked too. Then a search warrant was obtained for his house. Defendant didn’t meet his burden to show that the good faith exception didn’t apply but citing a case that doesn’t even say that. The case also involved alleged misstatements and false statements in the affidavit for the search warrant, and he failed on that burden, so maybe that’s what the court was really thinking when used such sloppy language about the good faith exception instead. There certainly appears to be probable cause so the good faith exception should be completely moot. The search took longer than normal, but it wasn’t unreasonable. Because defendant was a lawyer, the computer files were reviewed by a taint team to protect defendant’s attorney-client communications on the computer. United States v. Jarman, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1813 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2017).