CA2: SW said “electronics” and “passwords” to access them, but it did not say “computers”; those words mean computers

The search warrant used the word “electronics” and “passwords” to access them, but it did not say “computers.” “Because the warrant specifically permitted seizure of “electronics,” a category into which computers and tablets would fall under the plain text, not to mention passwords that would allow access into those electronics, the warrant by its plain text allows the seizure of the computer and tablet.” By waiting six months to challenge the search, defendant waived it. Under Rule 41, the hard drive could be copied for later review. United States v. Folks, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37361 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2021).

Defendant didn’t challenge the search of his iPhone before trial and objected at trial. Based on the trial record and on plain error review, the court finds that the search warrant for the phone might be unreasonable because of a lack of probable cause and nexus. However, there was also consent to search the phone, so denied on this point. People v. Lee, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7078 (Dec. 16, 2021) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, School searches, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.