{"id":6671,"date":"2012-04-05T10:26:03","date_gmt":"2012-02-13T00:29:41","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-02-12T12:56:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6671","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Warrant to seize necessarily includes power to search; here a computer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A warrant for child pornography on defendant\u2019s computer was based on probable cause from a report from a user who saw it. The warrant was to \u201cseize,\u201d and that included \u201csearch.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/12a0042p-06.pdf\">United States v. Evers<\/a>, 669 F.3d 645, 2012 FED App. 0042P (6th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The federal courts are in agreement that a warrant authorizing the seizure of a defendant\u2019s home computer equipment and digital media for a subsequent off-site electronic search is not unreasonable or overbroad, as long as the probable-cause showing in the warrant application and affidavit demonstrate a \u201csufficient chance of finding some needles in the computer haystack.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=3276208017390108766&amp;q=u.s.+v.+Upham&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Upham<\/a>, 168 F.3d at 535; see also <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=17956785368259762977&amp;q=439+F.3d+1263&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Grimmett<\/a>, 439 F.3d 1263, 1268-70 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a warrant for the search of \u201cany and all\u201d computer hardware and software for child pornography authorized both the seizure and subsequent search of the defendant\u2019s computer files); <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16586210752227090075&amp;q=Guest+v.+Leis&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Guest<\/a>, 255 F.3d at 335 (\u201cBecause of the technical difficulties of conducting a computer search in a suspect\u2019s home, the seizure of the computers, including their content, was reasonable in [this] case[] to allow police to locate the offending files.\u201d); <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=3276208017390108766&amp;q=u.s.+v.+Upham&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Upham<\/a>, 168 F.3d at 535 (\u201cAs a practical matter, the seizure and subsequent off-premises search of the computer &#8230; was about the narrowest definable search and seizure reasonably likely to obtain the images [of the child pornography sought].\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, a second warrant to search a properly seized computer is not necessary \u201cwhere the evidence obtained in the search did not exceed the probable cause articulated in the original warrant.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16758893869214515594&amp;q=638+F.3d+962&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Richards<\/a>, 659 F.3d at 539 n.10 (citing <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14247166691791897489&amp;q=638+F.3d+962&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Gregoire<\/a>, 638 F.3d 962, 967-68 (8th Cir. 2011); <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=17956785368259762977&amp;q=439+F.3d+1263&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Grimmett<\/a>, 439 F.3d at 1268-69; <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=3276208017390108766&amp;q=u.s.+v.+Upham&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Upham<\/a>, 168 F.3d at 535; and <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=3777540721058993634&amp;q=152+F.3d+1241&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Simpson<\/a>, 152 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998)). This is in keeping with the general principle that \u201ceven evidence not described in a search warrant may be seized if it is reasonably related to the offense which formed the basis for the search warrant.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1162340922761563740&amp;q=343+F.3d+849&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Wright<\/a>, 343 F.3d 849, 863 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=11625702541383826099&amp;q=848+F.2d+1374&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Henson<\/a>, 848 F.2d 1374, 1383 (6th Cir. 1988) (\u201cA search does not become invalid merely because some items not covered by a warrant are seized.\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6671\">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-6671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6671","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=6671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}