The warrant here authorized search of defendant\u2019s iCloud account for 11 years worth of information despite the probable cause being limited to one event in 2022. The warrant was based on a template that authorized search of the entire account, and it failed particularity. It became a rummaging. Moreover, the good faith exception cannot be applied here because of its breadth. United States v. Rondeau, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207909 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2024):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Because the officers understood that they could search for anything within the iCloud account and they relied upon the unparticularized list of items in the iCloud warrant to justify the search for T.C.’s allegations, the officers’ actions were unreasonable when they failed to seize evidence related only to the crime under investigation. The warrant and warrant affidavit failed to provide an officer with the reasonable belief that the iCloud warrant authorized a search for T.C.’s allegations because neither makes any reference to T.C.’s allegations. See Docket 39 at 13-24. Because the iCloud warrant was not tailored to the facts of the case, the description of items to be seized was left glaringly broad and allowed officers to conduct a general rummaging of Rondeau’s iCloud account. Thus, it is not objectively reasonable for an officer to conclude that they may seize digital data without regard to the crime under investigation. See Armstrong, 2022 WL 17417901, at *19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite Leon’s language that the good faith exception only applies when officers act within the scope of a warrant, see Leon, 468 U.S. at 922, the Eighth Circuit has applied the good faith exception when searching officers made an “honest mistake” in exceeding the scope of the warrant. See Shrum, 59 F.4th at 974 (quoting United States v. Suellentrop, 953 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2020)). Thus, under Shrum, the good faith exception allows the “admission of evidence obtained by officers who ‘reasonably believed that the warrant authorized the search, even if their interpretation was mistaken.'” Id. (quoting Suellentrop, 953 F.3d at 1050). Because it is hard to curb honest mistakes made by officers through exclusion, the exclusionary rule applies to behavior that is “deliberate,” “reckless,” or “grossly negligent” with respect to the Fourth Amendment. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The warrant here authorized search of defendant\u2019s iCloud account for 11 years worth of information despite the probable cause being limited to one event in 2022. The warrant was based on a template that authorized search of the entire account, … Continue reading