W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

In this child pornography case, the warrant was narrowed by the attached affidavit. In addition, the generality of the warrant is determined by what the officers did, not what they thought. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89056 (W.D. Pa. May 9, 2025):

Anderson’s position is not well-taken. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the Government that any determination about whether the warrant is sufficiently particularized must be based on the language of the warrant itself, and not the views or actions of law enforcement agents. See United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 240 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that “an investigator’s subjective intent is not relevant to whether a search falls within the scope of a search warrant”). Thus, neither Examiner Hernandez’ personal interpretation of the warrant nor his conduct in executing the warrant is of any legal moment for purposes of determining whether the warrant was invalid on its face.

Second, Anderson fails to account for the fact that the affidavit was appended to the search warrant and incorporated into it by reference. The affidavit specifies that “the purpose of this search warrant would be to obtain any and all data (pictures, videos, text messages, etc.) pertaining to the Victim before ANDERSON exposes it any further….” ECF No, 73-3 at 13. This language provides necessary context and specificity, ensuring that the search was not an indiscriminate rummaging but rather focused on identifying evidence related to the alleged stalking and dissemination of the victim’s sexually explicit photos. The warrant further ties the search for those pictures, videos and messages to a list of digital devices believed to contain evidence of the alleged offenses. See id. at 1 (authorizing the search of “[e]lectronic devices listed in Attachment A, included but not limited to, cell phones, thumb drives, memory cards, external hard drives, laptop computers, gaming systems and cameras” belonging to the Defendant). ECF No. 73-3 at 1. Thus, the warrant and attached affidavit limit the search of Anderson’s devices by reference to data that pertained to the victim (“Person A”) in relation to the two listed crimes, making it distinguishable from the warrant that was deemed invalid in Fleet Management.

Given the broad scope of data typically involved in digital harassment cases, the search warrant was appropriately tailored to locate evidence of the specific criminal conduct under investigation. …

This entry was posted in Overbreadth, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.