D.D.C.: Even if electronic search protocol is a const’l requirement, GFE applies

The lack of an electronics search protocol in the warrant, even if it was constitutionally required, doesn’t even have to be decided because of the good faith exception. “Okafor suggests that the Constitution might nonetheless demand that a warrant specify a search protocol when it authorizes a search of electronic media. The Court need not decide this question because, regardless, the warrants were executed in objective good faith. Under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, ‘evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant’ need not be excluded, even if the warrant is found lacking. … And ‘the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication’ that the officers acted in good faith. …” United States v. Okafor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170895 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2024).

Warrantless entry to obviate the opportunity to destroy evidence isn’t a reason to suppress. Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 813-16 (1984). “In Segura, the Supreme Court considered this idea in the context of a case where residents of a home could have had an opportunity to destroy evidence, but for the warrantless entry of police officers. Id. The Supreme Court noted that the ‘suggestion that [the defendant] and her cohorts would have removed or destroyed the evidence was pure speculation.” Id. at 816. … In closing, the Court rejected the concept of ‘some “constitutional right” to destroy evidence,’ saying ‘[t]his concept defies both logic and common sense.’ Id. The Seventh Circuit has fully adopted this reasoning. See United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836, 838 (7th Cir. 2000) (‘An argument that the suspects would have destroyed the drugs, if only they had more time and full possession of their faculties, is not a good reason to suppress probative evidence of crime.’) (citing Segura, 468 U.S. at 813-16) ….” United States v. Darrah, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170992 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 23, 2024).*