GA: Hard drive seized within 10 days of SW issued but not searched until later still validly searched

The search warrant for defendant’s computer hard drive was executed by its seizure within the ten days as required by statute. It was not, however, searched until after the ten days. That is not material. Mastrogiovanni v. State, 324 Ga. App. 739, 751 S.E.2d 536 (2013):

OCGA § 17-5-25 provides in pertinent part that, a “search warrant shall be executed within ten days from the time of issuance. … Any search warrant not executed within ten days from the time of issuance shall be void and shall be returned to the court of the judicial officer issuing the same as ‘not executed.'” There is no dispute that the search warrant at issue was executed in Mastrogiovanni’s house within the statutory time period. Mastrogiovanni’s contention is that the computer that was seized during the search could not itself be “searched” without a warrant, and the 10-day period window defined by OCGA § 17-5-25 had expired before the forensic analysis took place.

Mastrogiovanni has cited no authority for the proposition that the analysis of items seized during the execution of a valid search warrant requires a second search warrant. We are aware of no authority for the proposition that items seized from the lawful execution of a search warrant must then be analyzed, tested, or examined within the ten-day period provided for in OCGA § 17-5-25. The State analogizes the forensic analysis of Mastrogiovanni’s computer to the chemical analysis of substances that field-tested positive for illegal drugs when seized pursuant to a search warrant. The State is not required to obtain a second warrant to analyze the substance or, for example, conduct ballistic tests on seized firearms. Similarly, the State is not required to obtain a second warrant to analyze the computer here. Thus, as Mastrogiovanni has failed to establish that a motion to suppress would have been granted on this ground, the trial court did not err in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. See Biggs v. State, 281 Ga. 627, 631-632 (4) (b) (642 SE2d 74) (2007).