D.Nev.: SW to Microsoft for “all records” on a hotmail account was not overbroad

A search warrant to Microsoft for all records on a hotmail account was not overbroad or unreasonable. The government needed to sort through it. United States v. Bickle, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94921 (D. Nev. June 21, 2011):

Particularity is not the problem with the warrant in this case. The warrant called for Microsoft to disclose all records and information in Microsoft’s possession associated with polarbickle@hotmail.com. It is not ambiguous concerning what was sought. Rather, the question is whether the warrant is overbroad in authorizing Microsoft to disclose all account information and content while temporally and subject matter limiting what the government was authorized to seize. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement is to make general searches impossible and prevent “exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” See United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 486 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976)). The need to prevent general exploratory rummaging of a person’s belongings is particularly acute in document searches because, unlike requests for other tangibles, document searches tend to involve broad disclosures of the intimacies of private lives, thoughts, and transactions. United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461, 1468 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations and quotations omitted). However, the Ninth Circuit has often recognized a legitimate law enforcement need to scoop up large quantities of data and sift through it carefully for concealed or disguised pieces of evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2006).