Up periscope

Philip D. Cave

FLETC’s The Informer is out for this month. In addition to commentary on Ventris and Gant, here are a couple of summaries of two computer search cases.

10th CIRCUIT United States v. Otero, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001, April 28, 2009.

The modern development of the personal computer and its ability to store and intermingle a huge array of one’s personal papers in a single place increases law enforcement’s ability to conduct a wide-ranging search into a person’s private affairs, and accordingly makes the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement that much more important. A warrant authorizing a search of “any and all information and/or data” stored on a computer is the sort of wide-ranging search that fails to satisfy the particularity requirement. Warrants for computer searches must affirmatively limit the search to evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material.

11th CIRCUIT United States v. Mitchell, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8258, April 22, 2009.

A seizure of a computer based on probable cause is unconstitutional if the police act with unreasonable delay in securing a warrant. Computers are relied upon heavily for personal and business use. Individuals may store personal letters, e-mails, financial information, passwords, family photos, and countless other items of a personal nature in electronic form on their computer hard drives. Thus, the detention of the hard drive for over three weeks (21 days) before a warrant was sought constitutes a significant interference with possessory interest. The purpose of securing a search warrant soon after a suspect is dispossessed of a closed container reasonably believed to contain contraband is to ensure its prompt return should the search reveal no such incriminating evidence, for in that event the government would be obligated to return the container (unless it had some other evidentiary value). This consideration applies with even greater force to the hard drive of a computer, which is the digital equivalent of its owner’s home, capable of holding a universe of private information.

Not sure if these cases are helpful but, it’s worth looking for ways to challenge the general warrant nature of computer searches disguised as particular.

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message