E.D.N.Y.: iCloud SW was particular to time and offenses

“The Court finds both the iCloud and Midwood Lumber Warrants were sufficiently particularized and tethered to the Affidavits’ probable cause showings, thereby meeting the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.” … “[I]he iCloud Warrant identifies the property to be searched as “information associated with” Defendant Motovich’s Apple ID, iCloud Warrant Attach. A-3. Third, both Warrants ‘specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes,’ Galpin, 720 F.3d at 446, with each warrant providing illustrative categories of items to be seized limited to evidence of the subject offenses. Indeed, those categories are further limited by a requirement that the items seized be limited to a specific time period and involve certain individuals. [¶] Both Warrants satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirements set out in Galpin. First, both Warrants ‘identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable case,’ Galpin, 720 F.3d at 445, with each identifying specific ‘Subject Offenses’ to which any records seized much relate.” United States v. Motovich, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103709 (E.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024).*

The seizure of defendant’s vehicle for forfeiture was reasonable, and it was included in the indictment. “The purportedly false statements, which derive from inconsistencies between the two affidavits, are at best, nuanced versions of the same information. The fact that Magistrate Judge Johnstone had both affidavits belies any claim that the subsequent affidavit was intended to or did mislead.” United States v. Acevedo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103448 (D. Conn. June 11, 2024).*

Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim for appeal. People v. Vega, 2024 NY Slip Op 03145, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3203 (1st Dept. June 11, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Forfeiture, Particularity, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.