C.D.Cal.: SW for all software in gambling case was overbroad and no GFE

Defendant is accused of an illegal gambling operation in his home. The search warrant for software on the computer device is fatally overbroad. The warrant swept up everything, was overbroad, and the good faith exception did not apply. United States v. Zavala, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158991 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2026):

At the hearing, the Government asserted that the aim of these categories was the computer and hardware used to run the illegal “fish” game, … and these broad categories were permissible because it was impossible for an officer on the scene to determine which computer hardware and/or software was associated with illegal gambling. … This is contrary to governing law. “[G]eneric classifications are only acceptable when a more precise description is not possible.” United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (9th Cir. 1995). Just as in Kow, the Government could have made the description more precise, by doing what it sought to do in the hearing—limit the computer hardware and software to that used to operate the fish game at issue. For example, it could have authorized a search for “any and all computer hardware and software connected to illegal fish game console” or even “any and all computer hardware and software used to operate the illegal fish game console.”

But it did not. Rather, it described a broad category of potentially innocent items. Just as in Spilotro, “As the warrants stand . . . they authorize wholesale seizures of entire categories of items not generally evidence of criminal activity, and provide no guidelines to distinguish items used lawfully from those the government had probable cause to seize.” 800 F.2d at 964. As drafted, these categories are overbroad and invalid.

Category 6—covering “any and all documents showing assets”—Category 7—covering “any and all documents”—and Category 9—covering “any and all printed documents” as well as all “digital information that can be executed by a computer”—are also all plainly overbroad and invalid. Again, well-settled Ninth Circuit authority prohibits these broad categories under these circumstances. A seizure of all business documents is typically only permissible where the supporting affidavit establishes that the entire business is a sham or a scheme to defraud, or where it establishes that all of a business’s records are likely to establish criminal activity. Kow, 58 F.3d at 427; see also SDI Future Health, 568 F.3d at 703-05 (discussing various categories within a search warrant). It follows that when searching a defendant’s home, the only way a search for “all documents” could be justified is if the affidavit establishes that all of the defendant’s documents—including his personal papers—are likely to establish criminal activity. Neither of the supporting affidavits accomplish this, and therefore these categories fail as overbroad.

For the reasons set forth above, the search warrant is overbroad and therefore invalid.