Search warrant for seizure of defendant\u2019s computer and search for child pornography images was not overbroad. The computer was an instrumentality of the crime. A list was attached showing what was subject to seizure. United States v. Winther, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133799 (E.D. Pa. November 18, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
To determine whether the warrant was overbroad, this Court \u201cmust compare the search and seizure authorized by the warrant with the ambit of probable cause established by the supporting affidavit.\u201d In re Impounded Case<\/a>, 840 F.2d 196, 200 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Christine<\/a>, 687 F.2d at 753). Under the Fourth Amendment, \u201c\u2019[a]n otherwise unobjectionable description of the objects to be seized is defective if it is broader than can be justified by the probable cause upon which the warrant is based.\u2019\u201d Christine<\/a>, 687 F.2d at 753 (quoting 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment \u00a7 4.6, at 97 (1978)). \u201cThe fact that the warrant authorize[s] a search for a large amount of documents and records does not necessarily render the search invalid so long as there exists a sufficient nexus between the evidence to be seized and the alleged offenses.\u201d United States v. Am. Inv. of Pittsburgh<\/a>, 879 F.2d 1087, 1105-06 (3d Cir. 1989). An overly broad warrant can be cured by redaction, that is, by \u201cstriking from a warrant those severable phrases and clauses that are invalid for lack of probable cause or generality and preserving those severable phrases and clauses that satisfy the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Christine<\/a>, 687 F.2d at 754.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s argument that separate warrants are required to search defendant\u2019s house and his computer ignores the fact that defendant\u2019s computer use is the essence of the crimes with which he is charged: using the computer to access the Internet to entice interstate travel for illegal sexual activity, to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, and to attempt to transfer obscenity to a minor. \u201c[F]ederal courts have not required a second warrant to search a properly seized computer where the evidence obtained in the search did not exceed the probable cause articulated in the original warrant.\u201d Richards<\/a>, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21465, [WL] at *15. The computer and its contents were the focal point of the search warrant, not afterthoughts. The affidavit of probable cause established a sufficient nexus between defendant\u2019s alleged inappropriate Internet activities and the house in which the computer was located. See Voicenet Commc\u2019ns, Inc. v. Corbett<\/a>, No. 04-1318, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95619, 2010 WL 3657840, at *12-13 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2010) (rejecting overbreadth challenge in child pornography case where \u201cthe affidavit of probable cause specifically establishe[d], in detail, how the plaintiffs\u2019 computer system would be of evidentiary value in the search for evidence of child pornography\u201d).<\/p>\n
This case bears a strong resemblance to United States v. Christie<\/a>, in which the defendant was charged with advertising child pornography on the Internet and \u201c[t]he entirety of the FBI\u2019s investigation of him focused on his use of a computer to receive, distribute, and advertise child pornography.\u201d 570 F. Supp. 2d 657, 683-84 (D.N.J. 2008). The Christie court emphasized that Internet usage was at the core of defendant\u2019s alleged crimes and rejected an overbreadth challenge to a warrant that authorized a search for a list of items very similar to the Item List in this case: …<\/p>\n
As in Christie<\/a>, the scope of the search authorized in this case was no broader than was supported by the affidavit of probable cause. Contrary to defendant\u2019s claim, the warrant did not authorize the search and seizure \u201cof all the files within [defendant’s] computer.\u201d (Mot. Supp. Phys. Evid. 8.) The warrant instead repeatedly limited the search\u2019s scope to the offenses charged. (See, e.g., Item List \u00b6 11 (restricting search of computer-related items to \u201citems listed above\u201d and \u201citems specifically noted\u201d).).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading