{"id":4039,"date":"2010-04-07T08:00:58","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T07:59:24","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-07T07:59:24","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4039","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Tenn.: Palin e-mail hacking case: Hard drive could be seized and searched offsite, and all files could be search"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/2010\/04\/02\/2651772\/palin-e-mail-hacking-case-judge.html\">Palin e-mail hacking case<\/a> (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2008\/09\/gov-palins-yahoo-email-account-hacked\">EFF here<\/a>), the government made a showing to seize the defendant\u2019s whole computer to copy the hard drive for an off-site search, which is usually the preferable method anyway. \u201cThe Sixth Circuit has upheld the seizure of a computer and the subsequent search of the computer off-site due to the \u2018technical difficulties of conducting a computer search in a suspect&#8217;s home[.]\u2019 <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16586210752227090075&amp;q=255+F.3d+325&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Guest v. Leis<\/a>, 255 F.3d 325, 334-35 (6th Cir. 2001). In so holding, the appellate court observed that such a procedure necessarily involved the seizure of computer data unrelated to the offenses. Id. at 334. The Government contends that every other circuit to consider the issue has also held that the seizure of a computer (or a copy of its hard drive) and its subsequent search offsite does not violate the Fourth Amendment.\u201d No special search protocol was required. United States v. Kernell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32845 (E.D. Tenn. March 31, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Thus, the Court concludes that when the search warrant permits the agents to search a computer, they may search all of the files in that computer for the items to be seized:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Searching agents have the authority to look in any place where the evidence sought may be found. The methods employed in executing search warrants are left to the searching agent&#8217;s discretion as long as the methods are reasonable. Contrary to Defendant&#8217;s argument, [the executing officer] seized all of the computer equipment, not each individual file. This was proper because all of the computer equipment and storage devices were within the scope of the search warrant. [The executing officer] thus acted reasonably in executing the search warrant, and his examination of each file on Defendant&#8217;s computers and storage media was reasonable and necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>United States v. Ogden, No. 06-20033-STA, 2008 WL 4982756, *3 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 18, 2008) (holding that executing officer did not exceed the scope of the search warrant); see also Gilberson, 527 F.3d at 889-90 (holding that officers could search all the files on the computer for child pornography). \u201c[S]o long as the computer search is limited to a search for evidence explicitly authorized in the warrant, it is reasonable for the executing officers to open the various types of files located in the computer&#8217;s hard drive in order to determine whether they contain such evidence.\u201d United States v. Jack, No. S-07-0266, 2009 WL 453051, *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2009) (collecting cases).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4039\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}