“The Second Search Warrant authorized, among other things, without any limitation as to time, the seizure of a vast array of ‘[f]inancial information’ related to Mr. Moore and ‘associated businesses’ that constitute evidence of a crime and all electronics that constitute evidence of a crime, which were located at Mr. Moore’s office and the Moores’ home and inside any of Mr. Moore’s vehicles located at or near these places. But Officer Garnand’s affidavit failed to establish probable cause to believe that all these items were connected to criminal activity. The affidavit also failed to explain why evidence of a crime would fairly be found on any electronics. Indeed, the affidavit did not even mention the use of electronics in connection with any crimes. We have found similar warrants unconstitutionally overbroad. See, e.g., United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Cardwell, 680 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, the Second Search Warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad.” The officers don’t get qualified immunity because they didn’t properly plead it on appeal. Moore v. Garnand, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25824 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2023).
Police went to a fast food restaurant on a tip to see if a 14-year-old girl who was missing would show up, and defendant brought her. She recounted videoed sexual encounters. The search warrant for his house was valid. “The language of the search warrant can be interpreted reasonably as authorizing a search for pornographic material ‘located within’ all three of the listed devices — computers, laptops, and electronic storage devices — found at Hunt’s home.” United States v. Hunt, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25676 (11th Cir. Sep. 28, 2023).*