{"id":61739,"date":"2025-08-20T10:47:15","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T15:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61739"},"modified":"2025-08-20T10:47:43","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T15:47:43","slug":"wa-sw-for-electronic-devices-in-theft-case-was-overbroad-when-sexual-images-were-viewed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61739","title":{"rendered":"WA: SW for electronic devices in theft case was overbroad when sexual images were viewed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Defendant was a suspect in thefts. Police seized his briefcase and found electronic devices inside. The search warrant for the electronic devices produced a video of defendant having sex with his incapacitated girlfriend a decade earlier, which led to his prosecution for that. The warrant was overbroad in permitting a search beyond evidence of theft. This became a general warrant. State v. Hampton<\/a>, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1656 (Aug. 19, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\u00b625 We agree with Timothy Hampton\u2019s first argument of an overly broad search warrant. The warrant did not limit the search and seizures to the crimes for which law enforcement possessed probable cause. Overly broad warrants particularly offend the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when permitting searches of computer data. We do not address Hampton\u2019s second contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b626 Timothy Hampton characterizes the search warrant as empowering an unshackled search of his electronic storage devices found in the briefcase. According to Hampton, the warrant did not limit the content of the files stored within the electronic devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b627 The Fourth Amendment demands in part that \u201cno warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\u201d The latter part of this clause requires specificity in a search warrant. State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 545, 834 P.2d 611 (1992). Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution states that \u201cno person shall be disturbed in their private affairs or have their home invaded without authority of law.\u201d This state constitutional provision also compels particularity in search warrants. State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 549 (1992). Although Timothy Hampton cites article I, section 7, in his brief, he does not contend that the Washington constitution affords him greater protection under his circumstances. Instead, his analysis conflates the two constitutional analogs. Therefore, we rely on decisions construing both constitutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b628 The Bill of Rights framers adopted the particularity requirement to protect against the abhorred general warrant and writs of assistance of the colonial period used by the British to justify indiscriminate exploratory rummaging of personal property. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 301, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967); State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 545 (1992). The particularity requirement provides important protection against governmental invasion of privacy because the demand renders general searches impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S. Ct. 74, 72 L. Ed. 231 (1927). The particularity requirement also ensures judicial oversight of the scope of a law enforcement search such that the executing officer lacks unlimited discretion when executing the warrant. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927). The warrant must be based on probable cause of criminal activity and must limit the scope of the search to the probable cause determination. State v. Fairley, 12 Wn. App. 2d 315, 317, 457 P.3d 1150 (2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b629 Specificity consists of two components: particularity and breadth. State v. McKee, 3 Wn. App. 2d 11, 23, 413 P.3d 1049 (2018), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 193 Wn.2d 271, 438 P.3d 528 (2019). Particularity demands that the warrant clearly state what is sought. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated December 10, 1987, 926 F.2d 847, 856-57 (9th Cir.1991). Breadth requires the scope of the warrant be limited by the probable cause on which the warrant is based. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated December 10, 1987, 926 F.2d 847, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1991).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b630 A properly issued warrant distinguishes those items for which the State has probable cause to seize from those objects it does not. State v. Askham, 120 Wn. App. 872, 879, 86 P.3d 1224 (2004). A warrant\u2019s description suffices if it is as specific as the situation and the circumstances permit. State v. Griffith, 129 Wn. App. 482, 488, 120 P.3d 610 (2005). Law enforcement often identifies suspected crimes in order to meet the particularity prerequisite. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 28, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). We evaluate the legal sufficiency of a search warrant in a common sense, practical manner, rather than in a hypertechnical sense. United States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1510 (9th Cir. 1985); State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 549 (1992). We assess each warrant\u2019s validity on a case-by-case basis. State v. Perrone, 119 Wn.2d 538, 546-47 (1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b631 Washington and other courts recognize that a search of computers or electronic storage contrivances raises heightened particularity concerns. United States v. Russian, 848 F.3d 1239, 1245 (10th Cir. 2017); State v. Askham, 120 Wn. App. 872, 879 (2004); State v. McKee, 3 Wn. App. 2d 11, 24-25 (2018), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 193 Wn.2d 271, 438 P.3d 528 (2019). Warrants issued to search electronic devices call for specific sensitivity. State v. Fairley, 12 Wn. App. 2d 315, 320-21 (2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b632 In State v. Askham, 120 Wn. App. 872 (2004), Leonard Askham manufactured and distributed homoerotic pornographic images superimposing the face of Gerald Schlatter, the boyfriend of Askham\u2019s former girlfriend. Askham then sent Schlatter an anonymous e-mail threatening to ruin his professional and social life. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to seize Askham\u2019s computer and to search the computer for all files related to Schlatter. Because the warrant limited the search of computer files to those involving Schlatter, this court rejected Askham\u2019s challenge to the broadness of the warrant. The warrant allowing seizure of Timothy Hampton had no such limitation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Defendant was a suspect in thefts. Police seized his briefcase and found electronic devices inside. The search warrant for the electronic devices produced a video of defendant having sex with his incapacitated girlfriend a decade earlier, which led to his … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[105,65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-warrant","category-particularity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61739","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61739"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61739\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61741,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61739\/revisions\/61741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}