CA8: SW for computer did not have to ID the files to look in; it’s not practical

The search warrant for defendant’s computer did not have to specify for particularity where the files would be found in a computer because of the possibility of manipulation of the data. Officer could have provided more information to the state court judge issuing a search warrant, but that did not make what was disclosed misleading. United States v. Sherman, 372 Fed. Appx. 668 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)*:

We conclude Officer Buehrle made a good faith effort to independently verify the allegations of Schellert and he completed an adequate, although arguably not perfect, investigation. There is nothing contained in either Schellert’s affidavit or in Officer Buehrle’s affidavit which was either recklessly inaccurate or misleading to the state court. While more information could have been included in the application for the search warrant, its absence does not diminish the factual basis to support a finding of probable cause. The district court’s factual determinations for both the Franks hearing and the motion to suppress are not clearly erroneous and its legal conclusions are a proper application of the law. Neal, 528 F.3d 1069; Stevens, 530 F.3d 714; and Ketzeback, 358 F.3d 987.

. . .

The first paragraph of the search warrant was tied to the specific fraudulent practices suspected, and the computer records identified in the second paragraph were likely to contain evidence relevant to those suspect practices. The search warrant necessarily needed to include all computer equipment and systems to effectively allow law enforcement to “recognize and seize the materials described.” Horn, 187 F.3d at 788. “The failure of the warrant to anticipate the precise form in which [the data] would appear is not fatal.” United States v. Lowe, 50 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 1995).

Habeas petitioner’s petition was partly about the legality of his arrest, an issue rejected by the state court. This habeas is merely quarreling with the state court, and that deprived federal court of jurisdiction to decide the issue. Denial of relief was correct, and COA denied. Pickens v. Workman, 373 Fed. Appx. 847 (10th Cir. 2010).*

No jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for Fourth Amendment violations. Brock v. United States, 2010 U.S. Claims LEXIS 91 (April 6, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.