CA1: Alleged overseizure of email under SW would only require partial suppression; def doesn’t identify that which was overseized

Defendant’s motion to suppress electronic data acquired by a Rule 41(e)(2)(B) search warrant on his email account was properly denied. Based on the absence of a time limit in the warrant, it was not unreasonable to interpret the warrant to permit the government to retain the data until appeals were completed. There was no evidence that probable cause had lapsed at the time that any particular search of the data may have been conducted. Seizure of personal information was proper to show that he was the party controlling the email account. Even if the scope of the government’s search was too broad and violated the Fourth Amendment, he would only be entitled to partial suppression. He failed to identify which emails that were introduced at his trial on healthcare fraud conspiracy charges fell outside the scope of the warrant. United States v. Aboshady, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198 (1st Cir. Feb. 20, 2020).

It is not clearly established that a police officer’s taking the mentally infirm decedent to the county line and leaving him violated the Fourth Amendment. The decedent was hit by a car and died. Keller v. Fleming, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5227 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020).*

This entry was posted in E-mail, Overseizure, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.