In the Courts

In United States v. Hill, No. 05-50219 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2006) the Ninth Circuit noted that it does not approve of warrants authorizing the removal of all computer storage media so that they can be examined off site when there is no affidavit giving a reasonable explanation as to why the seizure, as opposed to on-site inspection, is necessary.

The defendant, who conditionally pled guilty to child pornography charges, challenged the validity of a warrant pursuant to which evidence was seized from electronic storage media taken from his home. His appeal raised the issue of whether it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for the police to take all of the electronic storage media from his home to be searched at a police laboratory, rather than carrying out the search in his home and seizing only whatever evidence could be found on-site. The Ninth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the lower court, which noted that the police found no computer in the defendant's home with which to peruse the storage media, and that the police were not obliged to bring with them equipment capable of reading the storage media. The circuit court also held that although the warrant in this case authorized the wholesale seizure, the warrant was flawed because the officers did not justify the need for the broad seizure to the magistrate. The court noted that there 'must be some threshold showing before the government may seize the haystack to look for the needle.' Nonetheless, the circuit court declined to suppress the fruits of the search, holding that the officers' actions were motivated by practicality and that the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of evidence within the scope of the warrant simply because items outside the scope of the warrant were unlawfully seized.