| D. Nevada |
|
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.2011United States v. Rodriguez, 2:10-CR-235 JCM (PAL) (Nev. 1-18-2011) -- Motion to Suppress Granted in Part and Denied in Part -- A search warrant was issued authorizing law enforcement agents to search for and seize evidence relating to two separate alleged crimes: drug trafficking and the manufacture of explosive devices. During the execution of the warrant, agents located and seized three marijuana pipes and three Dell computers. Defendant moved to suppress the computers, arguing that there was no probable cause for the search relating to drug trafficking. A U.S. magistrate agreed, and recommended that the computers be suppressed. On appeal to the district court, the government argued that the computers were actually seized by ATF special agents and a bomb squad, and or in the alternative, were admissible under the inevitability exception. The district court agreed with the magistrate that seizure of computers was not authorized under the portion of the search warrant dealing with explosives, since the categories of items listed did not specifically encompass computers or other electronic devices. However, the district court agreed with the government that the computers would have been discovered lawfully, since agents knew that defendant had purchased explosive components over the Internet, and that agents found print-outs of Internet information relating to bomb-making. As a result, agents inevitably would have located and seized the computers without relying on any aspect of the illegal search. The district court ruled that evidence for the computers could be admitted solely in connection with the bomb-making charge.2010Robertson v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 2:10-cv-00303-GMN-LRL (D. Nev. 10-28-2010) — Plaintiff's law firm filed a motion to withdraw. Defendant had no objection, provided that the withdrawal would not interfere with the ability of its computer forensics expert to examine various electronic evidence. The Court conditioned withdrawal on delivery of certain equipment to defendant's expert, suspended discovery deadlines, and ordered plaintiff to preserve existing electronic information.Mazzeo v. Arthur, Case No.: 2:08-cv-01387-RLH-PAL (D. Nev. 10-28-2010) — Plaintiff sued Defendant, the current governor of Nevada, alleging that he committed battery, false imprisonment, and sexual assault against her. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that a forensics analysis of video footage from the site of the alleged assault fails to show any image of plaintiff or defendant. But the Court noted that plaintiff had submitted eyewitness testimony supporting her version of events, and that at most, the contradictory video forensics report creates a triable issue of fact. Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2:07-cv-00662-KJD-LRL (D. Nev. 9-30-2010) — Plaintiff sued defendant for employment discrimination. During the course of discovery, defendants requested production of plaintiff's home computer for inspection. Plaintiff objected, arguing that it did contain any relevant information. Eventually, the Court ordered a forensic exam subject to a highly detailed protective order. During the course of the examination by Vestige Ltd., it was discovered that the program CCleaner had been run on the home computer two days prior to the scheduled exam. Defendant asked for sanctions, including dismissal of the case. After taking testimony from plaintiff and from the computer experts for each side, the Court concluded that it was not possible to determine if any deleted files contained relevant information or that plaintiff had intentionally attempted to destroy evidence. The Court ordered plaintiff to pay defendant's cost in bringing the spoliation motion, but declined to assess any further sanctions. U.S. v. Garcia, Case No. 2:07-cr-00235-LDG-PAL (D. Nev. 7-9-2010) -- Defendant convicted on one count of enticement and attempted enticement of a 13-year-old female (actually an undercover investigator). Defendant challenged his conviction, arguing that he was denied his Sixth Amendment rights to put cross-examine witnesses and put on a defense. The court rejected the arguments, noting among other things that defense counsel questioned the investigator about the lack of child pornography on defendant's computer, and argued the same point to the jury. |
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.
