{"id":1917,"date":"2008-05-08T21:56:15","date_gmt":"2008-03-27T06:55:11","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-27T06:55:11","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1917","title":{"rendered":"CA1: Search warrant for a photo of a child logically permits search of a videotape"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A search warrant for a photo of a child logically permits search of a videotape, given the state of technology. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca1.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2532.01A\">United States v. Rogers<\/a>, 521 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Furthermore, &#8220;[a]s a general proposition, any container situated within residential premises which are the subject of a validly-issued warrant may be searched if it is reasonable to believe that the container could conceal items of the kind portrayed in the warrant.&#8221;  &#8230; In determining whether it is reasonable to search a particular container for an object, &#8220;search warrants and affidavits should be considered in a common sense manner, and hypertechnical readings should be avoided.&#8221;  &#8230;<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the critical question is whether it is reasonable to believe that a videotape could contain &#8220;photos of DW.&#8221; Rogers argues that the term &#8220;photos&#8221; &#8212; at least in this case &#8212; clearly means &#8220;developed print photographs&#8221; and, therefore, that it was not reasonable for the officers to search the videotape for &#8220;photos of DW.&#8221; The government responds, echoing the magistrate judge&#8217;s analysis, that given the current state of technology, the term &#8220;photos&#8221; reasonably includes images captured on videotapes or by a digital camera.<\/p>\n<p>We are persuaded that the government&#8217;s argument must prevail. As the magistrate judge pointed out, given the state of technology, a videotape is a plausible repository for a photo. To adopt the narrowest definition of &#8220;photos,&#8221; as Rogers proposes, would, we believe, ignore our obligation to read the warrant and affidavit in a common sense manner and avoid hypertechnical definitions. The affidavit submitted in support of the warrant application stated that DW&#8217;s mother &#8220;said that [Rogers] has several photos of [DW] at his apartment&#8221; and that &#8220;he had asked her for copies of the ones she had.&#8221; Gov&#8217;t Addendum at 1. Based on that information, the warrant authorized the seizure of all &#8220;photos of DW.&#8221; Given these facts, we conclude that it is reasonable to believe that in the circumstances here the two seized videotapes could contain &#8220;photos of DW.&#8221; Accordingly, the seizure and subsequent search of the videotape did not exceed the scope of the first search warrant. It follows (and Rogers does not argue to the contrary) that there is no basis for suppressing any of the evidence discovered thereafter. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Rogers&#8217; motion to suppress the videotape.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><em>Comment:<\/em> A computer, yes, but I find it a stretch to find it logical that a picture would be on a videotape.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1917\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}