Motion to suppress computer searches denied without prejudice, and the government is ordered to provide the computer search protocol to the defense so it can be determined whether the search was overbroad. United States v. Fu-Tain Lu, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144395 (N.D. Cal. September 16, 2010): <\/p>\n
The defense argues, however, that Agent Zaborowski’s search was improper because the mirror images should have been turned over to a magistrate or third party to monitor any off site search. By engaging a third party to monitor the search of intermingled documents, the defendants contend that their Fourth Amendment rights could have been adequately protected. See id.<\/a> at 595-96. The court finds, however, that Agent Zaborowski’s method of searching adequately protected defendants’ rights. By using software and word searches, the government avoided looking at documents that were likely to be outside the scope of the warrant. In a search of hard copy documents at a site, agents necessarily look at many documents that they do not seize because they are outside the scope of the warrant. With the method used by Agent Zaborowski, assuming he made appropriately narrow word searches, only those documents that had a likelihood of being within the scope of the warrant were examined by human eyes. Thus, potential Fourth Amendment concerns were minimized. Although Tamura<\/a> and United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc.<\/a>, 579 F.3d 989, 997-9 (2009) suggest that when documents within the scope of a warrant are intermingled with documents not covered by the warrant and the documents are removed from the site for later review, the further search should be with the approval of a magistrate. However, Tamura<\/a> did not consider the Government’s utilization of a word search that would avoid looking at most, if not all, documents outside the scope of the warrant. It is doubtful that the method used by Zaborowski for searching electronically stored documents even existed at the time of Tamura<\/a>. In Comprehensive Drug Testing the searching agents were exposed to drug testing records of non-parties whose privacy rights were clearly violated, a very different situation than that in the present case.<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated, the court orders as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence is denied without prejudice to reconsideration if the defense discovers that the Government did a search of the mirror images that was not reasonably designed to find only documents, files or data described in the warrant;<\/p>\n
2. The Government is to turn over the mirror images of the hard drives and thumb drives in its possession to the defense;<\/p>\n
3. The mirror images of the hard drives and thumb drives are to be maintained in their present state by defense counsel or a third party escrow;<\/p>\n
4. The Government is to return the eight 1.44MB floppy disks to defendants without reviewing them, is not to use them against defendants at trial and must destroy the CD onto which the floppy disks were copied;<\/p>\n
5. The Government is to provide the defense with the word searches it used as best they can be reconstructed; and<\/p>\n
6. The Government is to provide the defense with copies of any documents, files or data from the mirror images it book marked or otherwise selected or copied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading