ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Motion to Suppress Denied -- Defendant was a target of an investigation into an "account takeover" scam. Based on the results of their investigation, law enforcement agents applied for and received search warrants for the apartment of defendant's girlfriend, and a silver-colored Lexus automobile, which contained a laptop with relevant evidence.

 

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained in those searches, arguing that the allegations made in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant application were insufficiently specific to establish probable cause. The district court noted that, among other things, "[a] common set of telephone numbers, internet protocol ("IP") addresses, and mailing addresses were used" in the account takeover scheme. A law enforcement agent also observed defendant entering an apartment building in which was located an unsecured router associated with an IP address that had been used to access various account. Defendant's connection to his girlfriend's apartment was established by various pieces of evidence, including cell phone data showing that phones associated with the fraud used cell phone towers within range of the girlfriend's apartment. As for the search of the Lexus and the enclosed laptop, the district court concluded that defendant had no ownership interest in either the car or the laptop. Without such interest, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to either the car or its contents. Applying the standards announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the district court concluded that given the totatity of circumstances, and taking the affidavit as a whole, there was a substantial basis for the issuance of each warrant.