Defendant’s motion to suppress a FISA was properly denied because his Fourth Amendment facial challenge failed given his concession that the emergency provision could be constitutionally applied in some circumstances. Even if the provision had to be narrowly construed, he failed to argue that the government could not have met that standard. Also, his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his electronic devices was properly denied because the warrant was most naturally read to contemplate the off-site search of his devices after their seizure based on an attachment. The court notes he “does not make a clear argument as to how his challenge to the District Court’s denial of each of these motions to suppress relates to each of his convictions,” but the court decides the merits anyway. United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25965 (1st Cir. Aug. 28, 2019).
Playpen warrant sustained. United States v. Taylor, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25950 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2019).*