{"id":6301,"date":"2012-02-26T11:29:48","date_gmt":"2011-11-23T07:47:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-11-23T07:47:22","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6301","title":{"rendered":"NY4: Second search of computer before return to owner was valid under original warrant"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s computer was searched, and he pled guilty to possession of a single photograph of child pornography. After his plea, he requested his computer back, and it was searched again before return finding more child pornography overlooked before. He could be prosecuted separately for possession of the other photographs, and the subsequent second search of the computer was valid under the original warrant from seven months earlier. People v Deprospero<\/a>, 2011 NY Slip Op 8421, 91 A.D.3d 39, 932 N.Y.S.2d 789 (4th Dept. 2011):<\/p>\n

Turning to the novel issue on appeal, we conclude that the court properly refused to suppress evidence uncovered in the January 2010 search of property seized pursuant to the May 2009 warrant. While it is indeed the case that the examination at issue of defendant\u2019s property occurred after sentencing on another charge and followed defendant\u2019s request for the return of such property, we conclude that the police conduct in this case did not violate defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights for a number of reasons. First, defendant provides no support for his contention that the authority to search his property pursuant to the May 2009 warrant terminated at the conclusion of the 2009 prosecution, and we reject that contention. The search warrant directed the police to seize, inter alia, defendant\u2019s computers, external drives, storage media, and cameras, and \u201cauthorize[d] the police agency to retain said property for the purpose of further analysis and examination.\u201d There was no deadline in the warrant for completion of the forensic examination and analysis, \u201cnor [does] the Fourth Amendment provide[] for a specific time limit in which a computer may undergo a government forensic examination after it has been seized pursuant to a search warrant\u201d (United States v Hernandez<\/a>, 183 F Supp 2d 468, 480; see United States v Syphers<\/a>, 426 F3d 461, 469, cert denied 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S. Ct. 2312, 164 L. Ed. 2d 831; United States v Gorrell, 360 F Supp 2d 48, 55 n 5 [\u201cThe warrant did not limit the amount of time in which the government was required to complete its off-site forensic analysis of the seized items and the courts have not imposed such a prophylactic constraint on law enforcement\u201d]; United States v Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 211 FRD 31, 66 [the Fourth Amendment does not \u201cimpose any time limitation on the government\u2019s forensic examination of the evidence seized\u201d]). Indeed, \u201c[t]he Fourth Amendment itself contains no requirements about when the search or seizure is to occur or the duration\u2019\u201d (Syphers, 426 F3d at 469, quoting United States v Gerber, 994 F2d 1556, 1559-1560). Rather, \u201c[t]he Fourth Amendment only requires that the subsequent search of the computer be made within a reasonable time\u201d (United States v Mutschelknaus<\/a>, 564 F Supp 2d 1072, 1076, affd 592 F3d 826).<\/p>\n

Finally, we reject defendant\u2019s further contention that the police were required to obtain a new search warrant before searching the property seized pursuant to the May 2009 warrant. \u201cOnce a person or his [or her] effects have been reduced to custodial control in the law enforcement system his [or her] privacy has been intruded upon\u201d (People v Perel<\/a>, 34 NY2d 462, 465, 315 N.E.2d 452, 358 N.Y.S.2d 383). The subsequent search of the property lawfully seized \u201cis then but a lesser-related intrusion incident to the [seizure] already effected\u201d (People v Greenwald<\/a>, 90 AD2d 668, 668, 455 N.Y.S.2d 865; see Perel, 34 NY2d at 465; People v Payne<\/a>, 233 AD2d 787, 787, 650 N.Y.S.2d 833 [\u201cOnce a person has been placed in custody, his [or her] privacy has been compromised and the subsequent examination and testing of items seized at the time of arrest is permissible as a lesser-related intrusion incident to the arrest already effected\u201d]). Once defendant\u2019s property had been lawfully seized pursuant to the May 2009 warrant, he lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in that property, notwithstanding the passage of time (see People v Natal<\/a>, 75 NY2d 379, 384, 553 N.E.2d 239, 553 N.Y.S.2d 650, …).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-6301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6301","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=6301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}