A \u201csearch and seizure warrant\u201d not only authorized seizure of defendant\u2019s computer but its search. \u201cDefendant’s argument that the search warrant authorized the seizure\u2014but not the search\u2014of his computer, phone, and computer storage media strains the bounds of logic and law. The language of a search warrant \u2018must be given a practical, rather than a hypertechnical, interpretation that is cabined by the purpose for which it issued.\u2019\u201d Search and seized means that. United States v. Axelson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13814 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2018).<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion there could be others in the basement for a protective sweep based on defendant\u2019s taking too long to come from the basement to talk to the officers along with the fact there were other conspirators in the case. United States v. Woods, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13655 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2018).*<\/p>\n
The appellate Fourth Amendment claim is waived by failure to object below. State v. J.A.C.<\/a>, 2018-Ohio-361, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 364 (12th Dist. Jan. 29, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A \u201csearch and seizure warrant\u201d not only authorized seizure of defendant\u2019s computer but its search. \u201cDefendant’s argument that the search warrant authorized the seizure\u2014but not the search\u2014of his computer, phone, and computer storage media strains the bounds of logic and … Continue reading