E.D. Cal.: Computer search protocol permitting searches without regard to file extension name was not unreasonable

A computer search protocol that involved opening all files under a search warrant was not unreasonable because file extension names can be misleading. United States v. Jack, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17411 (E.D. Cal. February 23, 2009):

The majority of courts addressing similar issues have reached essentially the same conclusion. Thus, it has been held that so long as the computer search is limited to a search for evidence explicitly authorized in the warrant, it is reasonable for the executing officers to open the various types of files located in the computer’s hard drive in order to determine whether they contain such evidence. See e.g. Adjani, 452 F.3d at 1150 (“The government should not be required to trust the suspect’s self-labeling when executing a warrant.”); United States v. Fumo, 565 F. Supp. 2d 638, 649 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (“[B]ecause of the nature of computer files, the government may legally open and briefly examine each file when searching a computer pursuant to a valid warrant in order to determine which files are described by the warrant. [citation omitted]. For few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked ‘crime records’.”); United States v. Kaechele, 466 F. Supp. 2d 868, 888 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (“To require such a pinpointed computer search, restricting the search to an email program or to specific search terms, would likely have failed to cast a sufficiently wide net to capture the evidence sought.”); United States v. Maali, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2004) (“[I]t has been recognized that seizure of superfluous computer files is virtually inevitable.”); United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31, 47 (D. Conn. 2002) (“Directories and files can be encrypted, hidden or misleadingly titled, stored in unusual formats, and commingled with unrelated and innocuous files that have no relation to the crimes under investigation. Descriptive file names or file extensions such as ‘.jpg’ cannot be relied on to determine the type of file because a computer user can save a file with any name or extension he chooses.”); United States v. Gray, 78 F. Supp. 2d 524, 529 (E.D. Va. 1999) (“[A]lthough care must be taken to ensure a computer search is not overbroad, searches of computer records ‘are no less constitutional than searches of physical records, where innocuous documents may be scanned to ascertain their relevancy.'”); United States v. Hunter, 13 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (D. Vt. 1998) (same); see also United States v. Cartier, 543 F. 3d 442, 448 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e decline to make a blanket finding that the absence of a search methodology or strategy renders a search warrant invalid per se.”); Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 335 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Defendants [law enforcement officers named in a civil action] may legitimately have checked to see that the contents of the directories corresponded to the labels placed on the directories. Suspects would otherwise be able to shield evidence from a search simply by ‘misfiling’ it in a directory labeled ‘e-mail.'”).