FL2: Victim described an Apple computer for the SW, but the officer included “devices” and that included a Dell computer they found instead

A child pornography victim described a silver Apple computer as where defendant’s photographs of her were stored. The police procured a search warrant and, when executing it, they found no silver Apple, but they did find a silver Dell computer. The warrant included “devices,” and the officer testified that he included “devices” because they didn’t know all that they would find, like the cameras and other computers. The trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress of the Dell computer because it could be seized under the warrant. State v. Chiquet, 82 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).*

Defendant validly consented. She had been Mirandized and advised of her right to refuse consent. She was upset, but many people arrested are. State v. Brown, 129 Conn. App. 552, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 339 (June 21, 2011).*

Defendant was believed to have burglarized his neighbor’s house, stolen his computer, and then accessed the internet through the victim’s wireless router. The police obtained IP information to aid in the investigation. Defendant’s state constitutional claim was unavailing because there was no reason to depart from the Fourth Amendment cases here. State v. Simmons, 2011 VT 69, 190 Vt. 141, 27 A.2d 1065 (2011).*