This search warrant was for steroids and misbranded drugs and included computers and defendant’s home. The warrant was issued with probable cause and was as particular as possible. As to the computer search, there was no constitutional requirement for a search protocol in advance. United States v. Mesika, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76643 (N.D. Ga. May 7, 2018):
Defendants’ argument that evidence should be suppressed because there was no pre-approved protocol for the computer searches also is without merit. In United States v. Bradley, the Eleventh Circuit explicitly rejected this argument, stating, “we reject outright the [defendants’] claim that the searches were unconstitutional because the agents failed to obtain pre-approval from the district court of a search protocol before conducting the searches.” 644 F.3d 1213, 1258 n.95 (11th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Khanani, 502 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2007) (rejecting the argument that the lack of a written search protocol required the district court to suppress all evidence agents seized as a result of the search of the defendants’ computers); United States v. Intakanok, No. CR 114-060, 2014 WL 4825368, at *8 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2014) (“It is well-established in the Eleventh Circuit that warrants of this nature need not specify search protocols or methodologies in order to pass constitutional muster.”). Here, Defendants have failed to cite any binding case law that would lead me to conclude that the procedures used in this case infringed on Defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights.