M.D.Fla.: SW not defective where it referred to data and not the computer itself

The search warrant for defendant’s property did not specifically say to seize computers, but it sufficiently referred to computer related data and stuff that it was more than reasonable to conclude under the good faith exception that computers were included. United States v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108911 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009) (USMJ’s R&R):

4) Data records related to the above computer related items, whether stored on paper (including computer printouts), on magnetic media such as tapes, cassettes, disk or memory devices such as optical disks, electronic address books, or any other storage media.
5) Any documents or other papers which contain set or sets or numbers or characters which may represent access codes or passwords for the computer, stored computer records, any on-line services, or other long distance carriers, and/or authorized credit agencies.
6) Computer printouts
7) Back-up copies of data and programs on floppy diskettes and other storage media. (Because computer stored data is so vulnerable, most computer users keep back-ups so if data is erased or deleted from the system itself, it may be recoverable on the back-up copies).
8) Data contained on all storage devices, including, but not limited to graphic and text files.

. . .

However, the list for the items to be searched contains many references to items relating to and found within computers including but not limited to storage devices for graphic and text tiles, data records relating to a computer, magnetic media, cassettes, disk or memory devices, and backup files. It was reasonable for the officers to seize the computers based upon the items listed in the Search Warrant. By seizing the computers the officers were within the terms of the search warrant and affidavit and were not conducting a general search.

The District Court adopted the R&R, United States v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108910 (M.D. Fla. November 19, 2009), adding:

The Court rejects defendant’s argument (Doc. # 46, p. 2) that the state Search Warrant had to comply with the federal definition of computer in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e). The Court also rejects defendant’s argument (Doc. # 46, pp. 2-4) that allowing seizure of the computers as an authorized item would mean that the February 24, 2009 search warrant was unnecessary. A law enforcement officer’s authority to possess an object is distinct from his or her authority to examine its contents. E.g., Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980); United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984); United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009). The second search warrant may or may not have been necessary, but its issuance does not detract from the validity of the first search warrant.

The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s alternative finding (Doc. # 41, pp. 11-12) that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, as articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), is satisfied in this case. The good faith exception applies to this type of issue, Travers, 233 F.3d at 1330, and the facts support its application to this case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.