IP address was sufficiently linked to defendant\u2019s home to support nexus for a search warrant for his computer. While it was not exclusively his, it was otherwise linked to him and it was the most common one used by defendant. United States v. Kearney, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110976 (D. Minn. November 30, 2009):<\/p>\n
Third, and most crucially, the affidavit links defendant’s “ownership” of IP address 68.116.165.4 on May 20 to 22, 2008, to the Internet persona padraigh8 and the associated Yahoo! and MySpace accounts. Although there is no averment in the affidavit that the subject IP address belonged to defendant on the dates of the alleged chats between padriagh8 and “Julie,” the affidavit provides probable cause to believe that defendant accessed padriagh8’s Yahoo! and MySpace accounts on May 21 and 22, 2008. Paragraph 18 of the affidavit states: “[P]adriagh8 accessed his [Yahoo!] account 288 times utilizing IP protocol address 68.116.165.4 between 4\/7\/08 and 5\/21\/08.” (Id. P 18 (emphasis added)). Paragraph 17 states: “IP log records from MySpace show that the user signed onto this MySpace account from IP address 68.116.165.4 multiple times between 8\/23\/07 and 5\/22\/08”. (Id. P 17 (emphasis added)). A fair reading of these statements is that, as of the date of the subpoenas, the Yahoo! and MySpace accounts had last been accessed by IP address 68.116.165.4 on May 21 and 22, 2008, respectively. Had the accounts last been accessed on some earlier dates, those earlier dates would have appeared in the affidavit in place of “5\/21\/08” in paragraph 18 and “5\/22\/08” in paragraph 17. 12 And because there is no dispute that IP address 68.116.165.4 belonged to defendant and was registered to 11 Morgan Drive, North Grafton, Massachusetts, on May 21 and 22, the affidavit fairly connects defendant to the screen name padriagh8 and the associated Yahoo! and MySpace accounts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cWide ranging\u201d fraud in defendant\u2019s medical practice justified a broad search warrant for records. United States v. Poulin, 671 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E.D. Va. 2009).*<\/p>\n
The defendant was found to have consented to a search of his hotel room for drugs, and a search for drugs can go anywhere drugs could be found. A locked safe was found, and defendant refused to consent to opening it, so officers got a search warrant for it. United States v. Rios, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111099 (M.D. Fla. November 4, 2009),* adopted United States v. Rios, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111118 (M.D. Fla. November 30, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading