D.Conn.: Computer search copying hard drives at scene complied with Tamura

The government’s computer search here was in 2003, and the officers copied 11 computer hard drives at the scene without taking the computers. If anything, this was less intrusive than seizing the computers and searching them. Also, defendants complained about the delay in searching the information, but they never moved for return of the information. The Tamura [United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1982)] rational applies, not CDT [United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, 579 F.3d 989, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)]. United States v. Ganias, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67806 (D. Conn. June 24, 2011):

In sum, government agents seized the computer data pursuant to a valid warrant. They used a means less intrusive to the individual whose possessions were seized than other means they were authorized to use, by making mirror images of the computer hard drives rather than seizing and holding the computers themselves. The forensic examination of the computers by the computer specialists was conducted within the limitations imposed by the warrant, and the case agents viewed only data that had been extracted accordingly. A copy of the evidence was preserved in the form in which it was taken. The defendant never moved for destruction or return of the data, which could have led to the seized pertinent data being preserved by other means. Finally, when other leads led the government to expand its investigation, the agents obtained the 2006 Warrant, which authorized them to search the computer data in their possession that they were not authorized to view under the 2003 Warrant. Cf. United States v. Riley 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Having found the rental agreement [for a storage locker in a search pursuant to a warrant of the defendant’s home], the agents did not proceed lawlessly to search the locker; they presented their evidence to a magistrate who justifiably found probable cause to believe that a search of the locker would uncover evidence of drug trafficking.”).

The difficulty of segregating and searching computer data that is pertinent to an investigation and can be legitimately searched by the government from nonpertinent data stored with it is a proper concern. Here however, where the searches and seizures were authorized by a magistrate judge, where government agents scrupulously avoided reviewing files that they were not entitled to review, and where the defendant had an alternative remedy pursuant to Rule 41(g) to avoid the complained of injury, i.e. that the government held his data for too long without returning or destroying it, the defendant has not shown that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.