\u201cThese were not warrants to search for \u2018any and all information\u2019 or \u2018all computer information\u2019 in defendant’s house. See Christie, 717 F.3d at 1165. Rather, the attachments effectively limited the scope of the searches to material relevant to specific federal crimes. Id. The warrants and attachments put officers on notice they were authorized to seize and search the devices for specified types of materials pertaining to the identified offenses. … Given the nature of the offenses alleged, there was necessarily a broad scope of relevant material, but the warrant cannot be faulted for failing to specify the items to be searched, the nature of the materials sought, or the object of the searches. In fact, defendant fails to explain how the warrants could have been more particular in authorizing a search that encompassed all of the potentially relevant records within defendant’s computers, cell phones, and internet accounts.\u201d United States v. Henson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96351 (D.Kan. June 22, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThese were not warrants to search for \u2018any and all information\u2019 or \u2018all computer information\u2019 in defendant’s house. See Christie, 717 F.3d at 1165. Rather, the attachments effectively limited the scope of the searches to material relevant to specific federal … Continue reading