S.D.Ohio: Warrant was still particular because attachments were present at time of search

The search warrants here were particular because the affidavits and attachments were incorporated by reference and present at the time of the search. The temporal limitations on the warrant were not vague and stale. It was limited in scope otherwise. There was also no standing as to a search warrant for an email account of another. United States v. Evans Landscaping, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190267 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2018):

The Court concludes that under the circumstances, the lack of a temporal limitation is not fatal to the search warrant. The affidavit in support of the search warrant lists nine specific categories of information sought. These are not broad descriptive terms. In general, “[s]o 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.” United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Roberts, No. 3:08-CR-175, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123188, 2010 WL 234719, at *15 (E.D.Tenn. Jan. 14, 2010)). Moreover, “[i]nfirmity due to overbreadth does not doom the entire warrant; rather, it 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….” United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d 527, 537 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 477 (6th Cir. 2001)).