In United States v. Salceda, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28211 (C.D. Cal. 2012), the district court ordered suppression of evidence found in unlawful searches. Law enforcement obtained an original warrant to seize the defendant's digital devices for evidence related to child pornography. The warrant was executed and devices seized, but two years later, law enforcement sought a new warrant to "conduct a more complete search" of the devices. The warrant was denied and law enforcement then determined the second warrant was unnecessary. Defendant argued that the evidence obtained during the new search was unconstitutional.
The warrant contained the following language:
If, after conducting such an initial search [within 60 days from the date of the execution of the search warrant], the case agents determine that a digital device is an item to be seized or contains any data falling within the list of items to be seized pursuant to this warrant, the government will retain the digital device for further analysis; otherwise, the government will return the digital device.The defendant argued that the "further analysis" language refers only to what is discovered during the 60 days rather than allowing "repeated searches of every part of the digital media." The court, noting the government's denied second warrant and ex parte application, found the language to be ambiguous and ordered suppression of the evidence.
UPDATE: Professor Orin Kerr recently wrote a post on Volokh Conspiracy criticizing the Salceda analysis, suggesting (as he did in the comments of this post) that the proper consideration for the court is reasonableness, rather than the terms of the warrant.
