D.Minn.: SW for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include CP

A search warrant for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include child pornography despite the fact that adult pornography isn’t a crime. There was also probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Barthman, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38203 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37339 (D. Minn. March 15, 2017).

“As the foregoing factual findings demonstrate, Steinmetz gave a general consent (both verbally and in writing) to a search of his residence and specifically consented to a search of his computers, external hard drives and other storage media. Steinmetz told the officers that he would “prefer” to be present during the search but did not condition consent on his presence during the search. In fact, after it was already clear to him that he would not be accompanying the officers, Steinmetz documented his verbal consent to the search of his computers by signing the permission to search form. Steinmetz also told Det. House which key to use to enter his residence after it was clear that he would not be allowed to be present for the search. In sum, the evidence as a whole supports the conclusion that the search conducted was within the scope of Steinmetz’s consent.” United States v. Steinmetz, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38681 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 7, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38365 (E.D. Mo. March 17, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.