holding that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by seizing evidence of child pornography seized under a warrant authorizing police to search the defendant’s computer for evidence of drug crimes after the police had ascertained that evidence of drug crimes was not contained on the computer
How later courts described this case
- holding that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by seizing evidence of child pornography seized under a warrant authorizing police to search the defendant’s computer for evidence of drug crimes after the police had ascertained that evidence of drug crimes was not contained on the computer
- explaining that police officers should generally perform a keyword search of computer files for specific terms sought by the search warrant, and suppressing evidence of child pornography on a computer hard drive 9 when the warrant authorized a search for evidence of drug trafficking
- holding that a general warrant to search all email and fax communications without limiting such a search to crimes being investigated was not sufficiently particular
- finding that “[r]elying on analogies to closed containers or file cabinets may lead courts to ‘oversimplify a complex area of Fourth Amendment doctrines and ignore the realities of massive modern computer storage.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by United States v. Rossby, 81 F. App'x 109 (2003)
Moreover, even in the Tenth Circuit, Carey has been limited to its facts.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Patrick Anthony Russo v. State (2007)
Carey is factually distinguishable.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 30, 1999.
This matter is before the court on the government’s petition for rehearing by the panel. Because the government contends we failed to properly follow Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 130 (1990), we recognize inadvertance is not a Fourth Amendment requirement. We note, however, “inadvertance is a characteristic of most legitimate ‘plain-view’ seizures.” Id. As such, the fact that Detective Lewis did not inadvertently come across the pornographic files is certainly relevant to our inquiry. Our holding is based, however, on the fact that Detective Lewis impermissibly expanded the scope of his search when he abandoned the search for drug-related evi *1278 dence to search for evidence of child pornography. The petition for rehearing is denied.