Fourth Circuit: US v. James Cobb

 

Warrant was sufficiently particular, as it specified the device to be searched and the offense for which the search was seeking evidence.

It would not have been reasonable to require the warrant affiant to explain where in the computer file structure the evidence was to be found.

Catch-all provision in warrant authorizing seizure of evidence of any and all other crimes was overbroad, but the remedy is to sever it from the otherwise sufficiently particular warrant.

Circuit precedent compels admissibility of evidence from plain view exception in a computer search.

Dissent:

Police had a sufficient theory of the case to explain the type of thing that they were looking for in the search.

If the warrant was flawed, plain view is out, since police could only seize the device.

No good faith exception for facially flawed warrant. 


US v. James Cobb