In a computer search warrant, the failure to abide by a date search filter did not make the search constitutionally overbroad. United States v. Rarick, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 953 (N.D. Ohio January 6, 2014):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Because the testimony of Lt. Icenhour and defense expert Dimitrelos agrees that searching data through a date filter risks excluding files, the Court finds that Lt. Icenhour’s failure to search using a date filter was not impermissibly broad, and that his search was the most effective and reasonable way to search for relevant recordings on Rarick’s phone. See United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 653 (6th Cir. 2012) (“given the unique problems encountered in computer searches and the practical difficulties inherent in implementing universal search methodologies, the majority of federal courts … have employed the Fourth Amendment’s bedrock principle of reasonableness … ‘a computer search may be as extensive as reasonably required to locate the items,'” quoting Richards, 659 F.3d at 538)); United States v. Triplett, 684 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2012) (forensic investigator searching contents of defendant’s computer for evidence concerning a disappearance discovered suspected child pornography and stopped the search to obtain a second warrant; “[a]lthough officers should limit exposure to innocent files, for a computer search, ‘in the end, there may be no practical substitute for actually looking in many (perhaps all) folders and sometimes the documents contained within those folders[,]'” quoting Richards, 659 F.3d at 539).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading