PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

CA9: No special protocol required for computer search warrant, but courts must be vigilant on review

Posted on May 6, 2015June 26, 2025 by Dissent

FourthAmendment.com posted this summary and case, although I think John omitted an important “not” when he wrote “the least intrusive measures are required.” The opinion seems to indicate that the court held they were not required, citing Quon, unless I’ve misunderstood:

No special protocol required for a computer search warrant, but vigilance of the court is expected in review to protect against overreaching. Also, the least intrusive measures are required. United States v. Nessland, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7360 (9th cir. May 4, 2015):

It did not specify “‘the precise manner’” of execution, but it was not required to do so. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 1500-01, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006). The officers were searching for a particular type of photographic image and came across the images in question here, which were in plain view. See United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2003). Thereupon, they stopped their search, and did not return to it until they obtained another warrant that covered the new type of images. See United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882, 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008). That approach did not violate Nessland’s rights. Indeed, this case is much like United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2013). There, as here, no special protocol was required, and the officers did follow the procedures set forth in the warrant application. Moreover, as here, there was no real risk of exposing other people’s data, and there was no sign of overreaching. Finally, even if some added protections could have been used here, the officers were not required to seek out and use the least intrusive means. See City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 763, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 2632, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010); Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 554 F.3d 769, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Giberson, 527 F.3d at 889-90. While we are well aware of the need for vigilance, [citing CDT] we are satisfied that Nessland’s rights were not violated by the search.

No related posts.

Category: CourtSurveillanceU.S.

Post navigation

← RI: Warwick police will no longer routinely get Motel 6 daily guest lists
Google relieved of duty to search for relevant evidence in executing search warrant →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • White House ordered to restore Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics
  • California Attorney General Announces $1.55M CCPA Settlement with Healthline.com
  • Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance
  • Wiretap Suits Pit Old Privacy Laws Against New AI Technology
  • Action against tiny Scottish charity sparks huge ICO row
  • Congress tries to outlaw AI that jacks up prices based on what it knows about you
  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Minnesota National Guard deployed; St. Paul declares state of emergency in response to cyberattack
  • Scattered Spider Hijacks VMware ESXi to Deploy Ransomware on Critical U.S. Infrastructure
  • Hacker group “Silent Crow” claims responsibility for cyberattack on Russia’s Aeroflot
  • AIIMS ORBO Portal Vulnerability Exposing Sensitive Organ Donor Data Discovered by Researcher
  • Two Data Breaches in Three Years: McKenzie Health
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy