The search warrant here for a computer in a child pornography case was not a general warrant, although it permitted a search of the entire computer. United States v. Morgan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161771 (E.D. Pa. November 13, 2012):

In this case, the search warrant for the Hatfield residence authorized the government to seize the computer hardware and software located in the residence as part of the search for evidence of criminal conduct. Such seizures were justified under the warrant because electronic evidence is the heart of this case.

The search warrant application provided extensive detail on the computer activity of Wook_inky101@yahoo.com from September through December 2011. This Yahoo account was used to engage in sexually explicit conversations, send sexually graphic images, and transmit child pornography to a person believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl in Texas. Federal agents traced this activity to Defendant's residence. The search warrant application noted the importance of computer technology in creating, exchanging, and storing child pornography, and also explained how agents would conduct their electronic searches of any evidence seized from the residence. The application made clear that evidence of child pornography rarely, if ever, completely disappears from any computer that once housed it.

In sum, the warrant authorized the FBI to seize a wide array of electronic equipment and data to search for evidence of criminal activity that was thoroughly supported by the general characteristics of those involved in child pornography, and by the actual facts in this case. The Court therefore concludes that the search warrant for the Hatfield residence was not a general warrant and properly complied with Fourth Amendment requirements.

Still, it reads like a general warrant. It seems that the court considers the entire object to be the subject of the search without specifying the target materials. Today, that's easy to do with computer programs seeking all image or video files by what they are, not by the name.

Defendant lived with a woman named Price at her dad’s house. The police tailed him there, arrested him for drugs, and then got permission of the dad to search the room. They asked the dad if he ever needed permission to enter the room, and he said no, so they asked him for consent. [No analysis of the relationships.] United States v. Page, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161531 (E.D. Tenn. October 22, 2012):

To be sure, if the search of the bedroom was an incident to defendant's arrest, it may have gone too far. But it was not an incident to defendant's arrest. Drug Task Force Director McQueen asked permission of the owner, Mr. Price, to search the house. Additionally, he asked Price if he (Price) had to obtain permission of his daughter or defendant to enter the daughter's bedroom. Price stated that he never asked permission, and he freely entered the bedroom when and as he wished, never asking permission of his daughter or defendant to do so. Mr. Price gave his consent to search. Based upon the representations Mr. Price made about his perceived authority over all areas of that house and Price's consent, the officers searched Nikea Price's bedroom, finding considerable evidence of drug trafficking therein.

Officer’s cut and paste error from one affidavit to another was enough for a Franks hearing. United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161211 (D. Utah November 7, 2012):

The court is not convinced by the United States' argument. The erroneous statements concerning the affiant's surveillance of the house in Magna are sufficiently material to justify an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the warrant. While the threshold for holding a Franks hearing is a high one, the court finds that the affiant's failure to remove this key information could constitute a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the affidavit. The Defendants may also be able to establish that the affiant omitted information about the CS, the meeting with Chalmes, or the results of the license plate check, and that this omission was committed either deliberately or recklessly. Taken together, this evidence may establish that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the search of the house in Magna was conducted in violation of the Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights.

HuffPo: Should Republicans Blame The TSA For Their Loss? (VIDEO) by Christopher Eliott:

When Susan Verbeeck attended a rally for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney with her two daughters and a friend at the Virginia State Fairgrounds in Doswell, Va., earlier this month, she didn't expect to be greeted by TSA agents.

But that's exactly what she found blocking the entrance to the fair: a row of metal-detectors staffed by uniformed TSA agents.

"We're accustomed to the TSA at airports when we travel," she says. "But now it seems they are ubiquitous. I understand that the presidential candidates need security, but wasn't the TSA originally formed for airport security?"

Well, that was the idea. But a look at TSA's mission statement, which isn't limited to air travel, means the agency could try to "protect" you anytime you set foot outside your home.

...

What would you do if you were assigned to screen supporters of a party that you knew presented a threat to your job security? If you answered: harass them, fail to properly screen them and indirectly allow the candidate to be heckled, then congratulations -- here's your tin foil hat and your very own copy of "The X-Files: The Complete Collector's Edition."

Did the TSA cost the Republicans the presidency? In such a close presidential election, anything could have swayed the electorate. But I think it's safe to say the agency didn't exactly help.

Jonathan Turley: Poll: One-Third of Americans Would Accept Cavity Searches By TSA:

In past columns, I have lamented how our government has not only stripped away core civil liberties from citizens, but that citizens have become increasing passive and accepting of the loss of such freedoms. A new poll conducted by Harris Interactive offers a particularly chilling measure of just how passive and accepting citizens have become to the new realities of our internal security system. The poll found almost one third of American adults would accept a “TSA body cavity search” in order to fly. Moreover a majority believes that it is reasonable to criminalize the act of disobeying any TSA agent.

The boiling frog.