E.D.Cal.: SW for computer need not dictate how search will be conducted; distinguishing Comprehensive Drug Testing

Child pornography images on a hard drive are not stale after one year. A First Circuit case said three years. Also, deleted images can be recovered from a computer indefinitely. How a computer search should be conducted is not required. United States v. Blake, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23014 (E.D. Cal. February 24, 2010)*:

There is no legal requirement that a search warrant include a specification of the precise manner in which the search is to be executed. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, while a search warrant must describe with particularity the object of the search, “the methodology used to find those objects need not be described: this court has never required warrants to contain a particularized computer search strategy.” … After a computer search, “[i]t is unrealistic to expect a warrant to prospectively restrict the scope of a search by directory, file name or extension or to attempt to structure search methods – that process must remain dynamic.” …

A pinpoint computer search restricting the search to a particular program or specific search terms is unrealistic. … Nor is a search protocol required to comply with a search warrant. … Defendant relies on United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 989, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2009) (“CDT”). The government distinguishes Comprehensive Drug Testing, as the challenge there was to an allegedly overbroad seizure of evidence held by a third-party. The remedy sought was not suppression of evidence in a criminal case, but return of property in which privacy rights were claimed in a civil proceeding.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.