| D. Pennsylvania [E.D.] |
|
Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.2010U.S. v. McNamara-Harvey, Criminal Action No. 10-219 (E.D. Pa. 10-5-2010) — Defendant's laptop was recovered from a garage in which he was sleeping, after defendant had fled the scene. Police later requested and received a warrant to seize and examine the laptop for nine categories of computer files relating to four possible crimes. Defendant moved to suppress the seizure and inspection of the laptop, arguing that the application for the warrant lacked specificity and was therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment as a general warrant. The Court concluded that the warrant application limited the search to specific categories of files relating to specific crimes, and thus did not give investigators "unbridle discretion" to rummage through Defendant's laptop. The Court also rejected Defendant's objection to the police's use of "boilerplate language" in support of its request to conduct an off-site examination of the entire hard drive. The Court noted that the Third Circuit had specifically upheld a warrant based on similar language in the controlling case of United States v. Ninety-two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-two Dollars & Fifty-seven Cents ($92,422.57), 307 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2002). Lastly, the Court noted that in laying out probable cause for a search of the laptop, police cited a variety of factors tending to support the belief that evidence of criminal intent would be found on the laptop. The motion to suppress was denied. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
