Reasonableness of length of time in consent search examined

A recent Eleventh Circuit case found that it was reasonable for law enforcement to wait nearly 11 months to search a computer that was obtained by consent. After signing a consent statement, Philip Edwards said he would like to have the computer back "sooner than later." At no point thereafter did he try to revoke consent.

As a result of various delays, a search warrant was not obtained for 34 days, and the computer was not analyzed until ten months later. The court held that because there was no revocation of consent and since Philip did not provide a specific amount of time, the timeliness was reasonable and within the consent.

I bring this case up not because it has anything unique about it, but to hopefully ignite discussion. I realize this is rather common place in child pornography and other cybercrime cases. Cybercrime units across the country are faced with budgets that hardly meet demand, often forcing long wait times. And obviously there an amount of time that should be considered de minimis, but eleven months seems be an unreasonable amount of time. The Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial exists, in part, to eliminate the distress of a defendant having to experience the uncertainty associated with the trial process. Certainly a similar protection should apply after a search. Due process? Cruel and unusual punishment?

Or is the key here consent? Should Emanuel have known that he could revoke his consent?

The case is United States v. Emanuel, 2011 WL 4376191 (11th Cir. 2011).