DHS officers trolling the internet for peer-to-peer file sharing discovered that a computer with a particular IP address had 418 likely child pornography files on it, and they narrowed it down and got a search warrant. The particularity clause of the warrant was limited strictly to looking for child pornography and it was not inappropriate to seize hardware, too. \u201cThe warrant was not unconstitutionally overbroad because non-contraband items contained within the computer (such as bank statements, professional records, personal photographs and music) were also subject to seizure. Again, federal courts have consistently recognized that computer searches pose unique challenges that may result in \u2018some innocuous documents [being] examined, at least cursorily in order to determine whether they are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized.\u2019 Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976).\u201d United States v. Conrad, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111176 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2013).<\/p>\n
\u201cWith respect to his motion concerning the search warrant, defendant Young failed to support his motion with a personal affidavit setting forth facts and\/or circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Since the defendant has failed to \u2018create a dispute over any material fact,\u2019 there is no requirement that the Court hold a hearing on his motion to suppress. Furthermore, the government’s uncontradicted response, refutes the defendant’s claim for suppression of evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that defendant’s motion to suppress be denied.\u201d United States v. Young, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110661 (W.D. N.Y. January 23, 2013),* adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110357 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading