In a criminal case recently decided by the 9th District Court of Appeals, a warrant not specifying the search of computers in the house was determined not to be specific enough in scope.
The facts of the case, Case 07-10567, Payton v USA, were that a warrant seeking evidence of anything used in the sale of narcotics did not include specifically any computer found.
The generic terms of looking for owe sheets and financial records did not give the Police probable cause to search when no other evidence was found involving the sale of drugs and no reason was discovered to allow the police to reason that the computer contents might contain any.
The officer found child pornography in a file searched when he moved the mouse of the computer and turned off the screensaver.
Other cases on point have shown that evidence in the vicinity of the computer might save a non specific warrant when the possibility is strong that the computer was used or involved in what the officers found. Other cases have allowed such searches and seizures where the officers stopped and obtained a second search warrant before proceeding.
The court distinguishes seizures as being considerably less invasive than searches when it comes to computers. Judges often can and do limit the items allowed for search under the warrant. It appears there is good reason for them to do so given the application of this and other cases appealed within the Circuit.
Given the great propensity for computers to store great quantities of data and support criminal enterprise, it will be in the great advantage for law enforcement to ensure that warrants issued have the desired search of any computer written on their face.
In the case at hand the mere mention of data without more would not support a non specific warrant under current application of the Fourth Amendment. It appears that the appellant will not be convicted of possession of child pornography in the case cited unless other evidence is strong enough for the case to survive a motion for dismissal. The appellant was given permission to withdraw a contingent guilty plea and the Court so ordered.
Comments