U.S. v. Richards, 76 M.J. 365

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. a search authorization, whether for a physical location or for an electronic device, must adhere to the standards of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; the Fourth Amendment states that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; this insistence on particularity is a defining aspect of search and seizure law
2. the Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe the things to be seized with sufficient particularity to prevent a general exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings; the proper metric of sufficient specificity is whether it was reasonable to provide a more specific description of the items at that juncture of the investigation
3. in charting how to apply the Fourth Amendment to searches of electronic devices, courts glean a zone in which such searches are expansive enough to allow investigators access to places where incriminating materials may be hidden, yet not so broad that they become the sort of free-for-all general searches the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Generally

1. a search authorization, whether for a physical location or for an electronic device, must adhere to the standards of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; the Fourth Amendment states that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; this insistence on particularity is a defining aspect of search and seizure law

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Derivative evidence

1. evidence derivative of an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation is commonly referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree and is generally not admissible at trial

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Plain view

1. in order for the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment to apply: (1) the officer must not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the spot from which the incriminating materials can be plainly viewed; (2) the incriminating character of the materials must be immediately apparent; and (3) the officer must have lawful access to the object itself
2. in this case, the government’s discovery of child pornography within a folder of unallocated materials was consistent with the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment, where the government agent was lawfully searching through the extracted files based on what we have determined to be a valid authorization when he encountered what appeared to be child pornography among the unallocated materials; and upon spotting the child pornography, he properly stopped his search and obtained a new authorization that allowed him to search specifically for child pornography

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Warrants

1. a search authorization, whether for a physical location or for an electronic device, must adhere to the standards of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; the Fourth Amendment states that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; this insistence on particularity is a defining aspect of search and seizure law
2. the Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe the things to be seized with sufficient particularity to prevent a general exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings; the proper metric of sufficient specificity is whether it was reasonable to provide a more specific description of the items at that juncture of the investigation
3. it is folly for a search warrant to attempt to structure the mechanics of the search and a warrant imposing such limits would unduly restrict legitimate search objectives; instead of attempting to set out bright line rules for limiting searches of electronic devices, courts look to what is reasonable under the circumstances; as always under the Fourth Amendment, the standard is reasonableness
4. warrants for computer searches must affirmatively limit the search to evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material
5. in charting how to apply the Fourth Amendment to searches of electronic devices, courts glean a zone in which such searches are expansive enough to allow investigators access to places where incriminating materials may be hidden, yet not so broad that they become the sort of free-for-all general searches the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent
6. although a temporal limitation is one possible method of tailoring a search authorization, it is by no means a requirement
7. in this case, the search warrant authorization was not overbroad (even though it did not contain a temporal date restriction limitation - despite the fact that that information was available and known to investigators) because the warrant was already sufficiently particularized to prevent a general search; here, the authorization and accompanying affidavit did not give authorities carte blanche to search in areas clearly outside the scope of the crime being investigated; they were only entitled to search appellant’s electronic media for any communication that related to his possible violation of a particular state statute in his relationship with a specific alleged victim; that authorization allowed for a search of the unallocated space and through potential communications materials that did not have an immediately clear date associated with them; the possibility that relevant communications could have existed among the unallocated materials provided sufficient basis to subject those materials to an authorized and particularized search

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when that court determines that the military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that he misapprehended the law
2. when an appellate court reviews a decision on a motion to suppress, it considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
3. an appellate court reviews de novo questions regarding whether a search authorization is overly broad