THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ASPECTS OF COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A PERSPECTIVE AND A PRIMER

Transcription

1 FILE:C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\MYBRIE~1\CLANCY 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM Dec THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ASPECTS OF COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A PERSPECTIVE AND A PRIMER Thomas K. Clancy * I. Introduction II. The Nature of Computer Searches: Searches for Data A. Document Searches B. Views Whether Computer Data are Documents Data Are Forms of Records/Container Analogy Rejection of the Document Search and Container Analogy: A ASpecial Approach@ Discussion of the Premises of the ASpecial Approach@ a. Should File Names or Types Limit the Scope of a Search? b. Do Technological Search Programs Make the File Cabinet Analogy Inadequate? c. Does the Nature or Amount of Material Make D ir e c to r, N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r J u s tic e a n d th e R u le o f L a w, a n d V is itin g P r o fe s s o r, U n iv e r s ity o f M is s is s ip p i S c h o o l o f L a w. I th a n k D o n M a s o n a n d M a r c H a r r o ld fo r th e ir c o m m e n ts o n a n e a r lie r d r a ft o f th is a r tic le. T h e N a tio n a l C e n te r fo r J u s tic e a n d th e R u le o f L a w is s u p p o r te d b y G r a n t N o D D - V X a w a r d e d b y th e B u r e a u o f J u s tic e A s s is ta n c e. T h e B u r e a u o f J u s tic e A s s is ta n c e is a c o m - p o n e n t o f th e O ffic e o f J u s tic e P rog r a m s, w h ic h in c lu d e s th e B u r e a u o f J u s tic e S ta tis tic s, th e N a tio n a l In s titu te o f J u s tic e, th e O ffic e o f J u v e n ile J u s tic e a n d D e lin q u e n c y P r e v e n tio n, a n d th e O ffic e o f V ic tim s o f C rim e. P o in ts o f vie w o r o p in io n s in th is a r tic le a r e th o s e o f th e a u th o r a n d d o n o t re p r e s e n t th e o ffic ia l p o s itio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s D e p a r tm e n t o f J u s tic e. 193

2 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 Computers Different From Other Containers? d. Limitations Based on Search Execution Procedures in Warrants III. Selected Fourth Amendment Applicability Issues A. Expectation of Privacy Analysis In General The Location of the ComputerCIn General Data on Work ComputersCGovernmental Employer Data on Work ComputersCPrivate Employer Information Obtained from Third Parties Joint Users; Password Protected Files B. Private Searches and Seizures In General Government Agents Replication and AContext@ Issues IV. Selected Satisfaction Issues A. Probable Cause B. Consent In General Scope of Consent Third Party Consent C. Particularity Claims In General Varieties of Computer Searches a. Searches for Computer Equipment b. Searches for Data D. Plain View E. Execution Issues On-site/Off-site Searches; Intermingled Documents Use of Experts Deleted Files V. Conclusion...271

3 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 195 I. INTRODUCTION This article is called a Aprimer@ because it outlines the application of Fourth Amendment principles to the search and seizure of computers and the digital information that is stored in them. It does not purport to address every Fourth Amendment issue that may arise in the computer context because, for many issues, the mere fact that a computer is involved does not change the analysis. Instead, it focuses on situations that are influenced by the fact that the object to be searched and seized is a computer or the data stored on it. Like a traditional primer, this article reports how courts have addressed Fourth Amendment applicability and satisfaction issues in the computer context.

4 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 A primer is generally thought of as not espousing a point of view. This article, however, departs from that role in two important respects. First, in discussing the nature of computer and digital evidence searches and seizures, it rejects the view that those intrusions require a Aspecial approach,@ that is, that unique Fourth Amendment rules are needed to regulate them; instead, this article adopts the view that computers are containers and the data they contain are mere forms of documents. This is to say that the principles applicable to document searches have equal application to electronic data searches. Second, it rejects expansion of the private search doctrine, used by some courts, which permits government agents to open data files that had not been opened during a preceding private party search and still not be a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment based on the theory that the Acontext@ in which the file was found negated any reasonable expectation of privacy. Underlying both of these points of view is the perspective that a computer is a container of containers of documents, that is, each individual file is a separate containerbjust like each manila file in a filing cabinet is a containerbthat requires a separate opening to determine what is inside. This is to say that the mere fact that an item to be searched or seized is electronic evidence does not fundamentally change the Fourth Amendment analytical structure that governs. II. THE NATURE OF COMPUTER SEARCHES: SEARCHES FOR DATA There are two principal approaches to searches involving electronic data stored on computers. One view asserts that a computer is a form of a container and that the data in electronic storage are mere forms of documents. A second view maintains that searches for data require a Aspecial approach,@ requiring unique procedures and detailed justifications. This article concludes that the first view is correct: computers are containers. As with all containers, they have the ability to hold

5 w W FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 197 physical evidence, including such items as wires, microchips, and hard drives. They also contain electronic evidence, that is, a series of digitally stored 0s and 1s that, when combined with a computer program, yield such items as images, words, and spreadsheets. Accordingly, the traditional standards of the Fourth Amendment regulate obtaining the evidence in containers that happen to be computers. A. Document Searches In Andresen v. Maryland, 1 the Supreme Court outlined the broad parameters of a permissible records search. In upholding the search of an office for documents that sought evidence of the crime of false pretenses by an attorney involved in real estate settlement activity, the Court asserted: U n d e r in ve s tig a tio n w a s a c o m p le x re a l e s ta te s c h e m e h o s e e xis te n c e c o u ld b e p ro ve d o n ly b y p ie c in g to g e th e r m a n y b its o f e vid e n c e. L ik e a jig s a w p u zzle, th e w h o le Ap ic tu re@ o f p e titio n e r's fa ls e - p re te n s e s c h e m e... c o u ld b e s h o w n o n ly b y p la c in g in th e p ro p e r p la c e th e m a n y p ie c e s o f e vid e n c e th a t, ta k e n s in g ly, w o u ld s h o w c o m p a ra tive ly little. T h e c o m p le xity o f a n ille g a l s c h e m e m a y n o t b e u s e d a s a s h ie ld to a vo id d e te c t io n w h e n th e S ta te h a s d e m o n s tra te d p ro b a b le c a u s e to b e lie ve th a t a c rim e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d a n d p ro b a b le c a u s e to b e lie ve th a t e vid e n c e o f th is c r im e is in th e s u s p e c t's p o s s e s s io n. Although authorizing a broad document search, the Court observed: e re c o g n ize th a t th e re a re g ra ve d a n g e rs in h e re n t in e xe c u t in g a w a rra n t a u th o rizin g a s e a r c h a n d s e izu re o f a p e r s o n 's p a p e rs th a t a re n o t n e c e s s a rily p re s e n t in e xe c u t in g a w a r ra n t to s e a r c h fo r p h ys ic a l o b je c ts w h o s e re le va n c e is m o re e a s ily a s c e rta in a b le. In s e a r c h e s fo r U.S , ( ). 2. a t n.1 0.

6 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 p a p e rs, it is c e rta in th a t s o m e in n o c u o u s d o c u m e n ts w ill b e e xa m in e d, a t le a s t c u rsorily, in o rd e r to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e y a re, in fa c t, a m o n g th o s e p a p e r s a u th o rize d to b e s e ize d. S im ila r d a n g e rs, o f c o u r s e, a re p re s e n t in e xec u tin g a w a rra n t fo r th e As e izu re@ o f te le p h o n e c o n ve r s a tio n s. In b o th k in d s o f s e a r c h e s, re s p o n s ib le o ffic ia ls, in c lu d in g ju d ic ia l o ffic ia ls, m u s t ta k e c a r e to a s s u re th a t th e y a re c o n d u c te d in a m a n n e r th a t m in im ize s u n w a rra n te d in trus io n s u p o n p riva c 3 y. Several of the themes articulated by Andresen have been applied by lower courts to searches of computers for data. Those considerations include the complexity of the crime, whether innocuous files can be examined, and minimization procedures to reduce the intrusion upon the individual's protected interests. Antecedent to those themes, however, is the debate whether Andresen's framework for document searches is applicable to computer searches. 3. a t n.1 1.

7 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 199 B. Views Whether Computer Data Are Documents 1. Data are Forms of Records/Container Analogy Many courts view data in computer storage as a form of a document. Hence, a warrant that authorizes a search for Awritings@ or Arecords@ permits a search of computer files. 4 This is to say that the government need not know the exact Aform that records may take.@ 5 Indeed, this view asserts that there is Ano principled distinction between records kept electronically and those in paper form@ 6 and, hence, there is Ano justification for favoring those who are capable of storing their records on computer over those who keep hard copies of their records.@ 7 In both instances, consistent with Andresen, Ainnocuous documents may be scanned to ascertain their relevancy@ 8 in Arecognition of `the reality that few people keep documents of their criminal transactions in a folder marked `[crime] records.'@ 9 4 S e e U n ite d S ta te s v. H u n te r, 1 3 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 7 4, (D. V t ) (w a r - r a n t a u th o r izin g s e a r c h fo r Ar e c o r d s@ p e r m itte d s e a r c h o f Ac o m p u t e r s, d is k s, a n d s im ila r p r o p e r ty@) ; U n ite d S ta te s v. M u s s o n, F. S u p p , (D. C o lo ) (s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r d is k e tte s a p p r o v e d u n d e r a w a r r a n t a u th o riz in g th e s e iz u r e o f Aa n y re c o r d s o r w ritin g s o f w h a ts o e v e r n a tu r e s h o w in g a n y b u s in e s s o r fin a n c ia l tra n s a c tio n s@) ; F r a s ier v. S ta te, N.E.2 d 4 4 9, 4 5 4, (In d. C t. A p p ) (w a r r a n t th a t a u th o r iz e d s e a r c h o f An o te s a n d o r r e c o r d s@ o f m a r iju a n a s a le s p e r m itte d p o lic e to e x a m in e c o m p u te r file s ); P e o p le v. G a ll, 3 0 P.3 d 1 4 5, (C o lo ) (w h e n w a r r a n t a u th o riz e d s e iz u r e o f Aw ritte n a n d p r in te d m a teria l@ in d ic a t in g a n in te n t to d o p h ysic a l h a r m to a p e r s o n o r b u ild in g p u r s u a n t to a n in v e s tig a tio n o f a c o n s p iracy to m u r d e r a n d u s e e x p lo s iv e s a g a in s t a fa c ility, s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r s p e r m is s ib le b e c a u s e th e y w e r e Ar ea s o n a b ly lik e ly to s e r v e a s `c o n ta in e r s ' fo r w ritin g s, o r th e fu n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f `w ritte n o r p r in t e d m a te r ia l'@) ; P e o p le v. L o o r ie, N.Y.S.2 d 4 8 3, (C o u n ty C t ) (w a r r a n t a u th o r izin g s e a r c h fo r Ar ec o r d s@ p e r m itte d s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r file s ); c f. U n ite d S ta te s v. T r iu m p h C a p ita l G r o u p, In c., F.R.D. 3 1 (D. C o n n ) (w a r r a n t a u th o r izin g s e a r c h fo r Afile r e c o r d s@

8 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 Courts adopting this view have often analogized computers to filing cabinets or to containers: h e p o e ] m a y s e a r c h e c a n a u o d b y e w a r - n c d g a n y c o n e r s a t a t c a n a t a a - s o n a b e c o n m s d e s c r e d e w a r n... T h c o n e r n a e q u a a p p a b n o n d n - a c h n o g a l o n e a t a a s o n a b e h o a n s s n g s. S a w a n t c a n n o t b e e e c d a n a e a n m o r p o s o f a n m a y k e, a n d e c o u h a a e d e s e o f g s a t a s r, o r e u n c n a l e q u n o m s e n u m e d a w a r n a s w e a s c o n e w h h e y a a s o n a b e b e 1 0 u n d. [T lic th lo tio th rize th ra t, in lu in ta in th lo tio th re re ly lik ly to ta in ite ib in th ra t. is ta in ra tio le is lly lic le to tra itio l, te lo ic Ac ta in rs@ th re re ly lik ly to ld in fo rm tio in le ta ib le fo rm im ila rly rra xp te to tic ip te ve ry fo rm ite re- ito ry in fo rm tio ta th re fo re rts ve ffirm th izu re th in th re im ila to th Af tio iva le t@ f, ite ra te in ra t, ll ta in rs in ic th re re ly lik ly to fo Following this view, computers have been said to be Areasonably likely to serve as `containers' for writings, or the functional in c lu d e d te x t, re m n a n ts, a n d fr a g m e n ts o f d e le te d file s ); U n ite d S ta te s v. H a r d in g, F. S u p p. 2 d 4 1 1, (S.D.N.Y ) (b e c a u s e p h o to g r a p h s m a y b e ta k e n b y d ig ita l o r film c a m e r a s a n d c a n b e s c a n n e d if in itia lly c a p tu r e d b y film, a w a r r a n t a u th o r izin g th e p o lic e to s e a r c h fo r Ap h o to g r a p h s@ a llo w e d a g e n ts to o p e n a n d in s p e c t g r a p h ic a l im a g e file s o n a z ip d is k ). 5 U n ite d S ta te s v. G a w rysia k, F. S u p p , (D.N.J ) (a p p r o v in g o f w a r r a n t to s e a r c h b u s in e s s o ffic e fo r e v id e n c e o f fr a u d ), a ff'd, F.3 d (3 d C ir ); a c c o r d U n ite d S ta te s v. H e n s o n, F.2 d , (6 th C ir ). 6 U n ite d S ta te s v. L ie v e r tz, F. S u p p. 2 d , (S.D. In d ). 7 U n ite d S ta te s v. H u n te r, 1 3 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 7 4, (D. V t ). 8. a t ; a c c o r d U n ite d S ta te s v. G ray, 7 8 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 2 4, (E.D. V a ). 9 U n ite d S ta te s v. H u n te r, 1 3 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 7 4, (D. V t ) (q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v. R ile y, F.2 d 8 4 1, (2 d C ir )); a c c o r d U n ite d S ta te s v. M a a li M., F. S u p p. 2 d , (M.D. F la ). 1 0 P e o p le v. G a ll, 3 0 P.3 d 1 4 5, (C o lo ) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ); s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v. A l- M arri, F. S u p p. 2 d 5 3 5, (S.D.N.Y ) (a c o m p u te r is a fo r m o f a c o n ta in e r ); P e o p le v. L o o r ie, N.Y.S.2 d 4 8 3, (C o u n - ty C t ) (s a m e ); U n ite d S ta te s v. B a rth, 2 6 F. S u p p. 2 d 9 2 9, (W.D. T e x ) (s a m e ).

9 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 201 equivalent of `written or printed 11 This is despite the recognition that computer file searches present Aa heightened of intermingling of relevant and irrelevant material: A[t]oday computers and computer disks store most of the records and data belonging to businesses and 12 Accepting this view does not mean that wholesale searches of data on computers are permitted. 13 Instead, the courts look to traditional means to limit the scope of document searches, such as the nature of the criminal activity alleged 14 or the nature of 1 1 P e o p v. G a 3 0 P d 1 4 5, o U n d S s v. H u n r, 1 3 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 7 4, 5 8 1, V T h e o n e r h o w e v e r, m u s t b e p r o p e r d e e d. S e e n o s a n d a c c o m p a n g x 1 4 S e e G u e s t L e, F d 3 2 5, C ) a r r a n s e e k g s u b s c r e r r m a n o b s c e n v e s a n r e q u g a t c o m m u n a n s a n d c o m p u r r e c o r d s p e r e d o n s e s w e r e a s p a r - u r a s c c u m s n c e s p e r m d U n d S s v. K o w, 5 8 F. 3 d 4 2 3, C ) n e w a y m a k e w a r r a n t p a r u r s p e c s u s p e c d c r a l c o n d u c t b e g v e s a d b u t w a r r a n t v a w h e n a u o r e d h e s e u r e o f a e v e r y d o c u m e n t a n d c o m p u t e r w o u t d a t g h o w m s r e d s u s p e c d c r e U n d S s v. G e o r g e, F d 7 2, 7 6 d C ) e r e r e r e n c e v e n c e ' o f a v n o f a b r o a d c r a l s o r g e n e r a l a l a c p r o v e s n o r e a d a s c e r a b g u e e s r e e x e c u g o e r s a s w h a t m s s e e ; L a A c a d e m c. U n d S s, F d 1, 5-6 C ) a r r a n t a t u d r e m o v a l o f u r o r e c k a d s o f d o c u - m e n a n d c o m p u r - r e d m a r d e p a r u r q u e m e n t w h e n, r a, d n o t s p e c e o f a u d u n d e r v e s a n U n d S s v. H u n r, 1 3 F. S u p p. 2 d 5 7 4, V ) c u s s g n s o n s c o p e o f s e a r c h v o g m o n e y u n d e r g s c h e m e S e a r c h W a r r a n t r K - S p o p o r, c F , C a ) a r r a n t r c o m p u r r e c o r d s a n d d a w o u t g c r e u n d e r v e s a n, d p a r u r r e q u e n S v. A s k h a m, 8 6 P d , a s h. A p p ) a r r a n t s u n p a r u r w h e n n a m e s c r e u n d e r v e s a n o r w h e n d e s c r e s o m e d e s u s p e c d c r a l a c h e n c e, w h e n a c c u s e d s u s p e c d o f u s g c o m p u r m a k e r e a a n d e a c c u s a n s a n d w a r r a n t d e e e o f x t s a n d w e b s s b e s e a r c h e d a t c o u h a v e b e e n u s e d c o n d u c t a t a c w a s s u n U n d S s v. L o n g o, 7 0 F. S u p p. 2 d 2 2 5, le ll,.3 (C lo ). ite ta te te (D t. ). Ac ta in,@ ly fin in fra te yin te t. v. is.3 (6 th ir. (w ts in ib in fo tio in ity in tig tio ir in th ic tio te ta in to th lis te ffe tic la ir ta itte ); ite ta te (9 th ir. (o to tic la is to ify te im in in in tig te in lid it th iz At iz virtu lly ith in ic in ite la te to te im ); ite ta te.2 (2 ir. (AM fe to `e id io la tio im in ta tu te crim in tivity id ily ta in le id lin fo th tin ffic to ite to iz.@) fa ye tte y, In v. ite ta te.2 (5 th ir. (w th res lte in fo fiv tru lo ts te la te te ia ls vio la te th tic la ity re ir in te lia it id ify typ fr in tig tio ); ite ta te te (D t. (d is in lim ita tio in lvin la in ); In re fo rts Im ts In.,.R.D (C.D l. (w fo Aa ll te ta,@ ith lim itin to im in tig tio vio la te tic la ity irem t); ta te.3 (W (w ffic ie tly tic la it im in tig tio it ib in As ta il@ te im in tivity; te in te to th ts fa ls tio ta ils th typ te file ite to th ld to th tivity, it ffic ie t); ite ta te (W.D.N.Y

10 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 the objects sought. 15 For example, searches of computers for evidence of child pornography and other sexual exploitation of children make up a shockingly large percentage of the decided cases; in response to particularity challenges in these cases, courts focus on the sufficiency of the allegations of criminal conduct 16 or the description of the objects 17 sought ) a r r a n t a t a u o r e d s e a r c h o f h a r d d r e a n d a n y d a d k s r w o d o c u m e n, o n e a p r o m s o r y n o, e n d T G L , c o n e d w e d e c b e d M C, a n d a p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t e n d 9 1 1, c o n e d e d e c e n d s p e c a d e s c r e d a r e a b e s e a r c h e d S v. N u c k o, S o. 2 d 7 2 4, A p p ) a r r a n t s e e k g r e c o r d s o f u s e d c a r b u s e s s c h a r g e d w r g e r y, o d o m e r m p e r g, a n d o e r c r a l v n s s u n t w h e n a u o r e d s e u r e o f d s r e d o n c o m p u r, c d g, b u t n o t d, m a g n e m e d o r a n y o e r e c n r m, h a r d d k s, c a s s e s, d k e s, p h o o p a l d e v e s a n d s e r v e r m a g n e t b a c k u p p e b e c a u s e n o g d c r e n o f o e r s e x e c u g w a r r a n 1 5 S e e U n d S s v. T h o r n, F d 6 7 9, C ) a r r a n t a t a u o e d s e a r c h a n d s e u r e o f e c n s r a g e m e d c o n g a g e s o f m o r s e n g a g e d s e x u a l a c a w e d e x a m a n o f c o n n o f v a r u s c o m p u r - r e d m e d U n d S s v. W o n g, F d 8 3 1, C ) a r r a n t a u o r g s e a r c h o f c o m p u r b d a a s s c a s s u n p a r u r w h e n c o m b e d w w a r r a n t o f m s s o u g h t h o u s e S v. O n e P n e e r C D - R O M C h a n g e P d 6 0 0, C A p p ) e u r e o f c o m p u r s y s m p e r m s u n d e r w a r r a n t a u o g s e u r e o f q u m e n t... p e r g e d u n o r d p y o f p o r n o g r a p h m a l n o f s o b s c e n w ; S c h a S, S d 6 3 3, e x. C ) e o f d e s e c r e p r o s e c u n, a g n e p e s a t c o n e d o r w e r e r e a s o n a b b e v e d c o n s n d a a n d / o r s s u n d e s c r e d m s b e s e e d 1 6 S e e U n d S s v. M e e k, F d 7 0 5, C ) a r r a n t s u n t s e a r c h r c r e v o g u s e o f r n e t w h e n d n u m e r o u s m s g s e d u c n a n d s e x u a l e x p n o f c h r e n : s e x u a e x p m a r l o r p a r a p h e r n a u s e d w e r h n o f c h r e n, s e x p h o g r a p h y e q u m e n c h p o r n o g r a p h a s w e a s m a r l d p a s t m o s n s u c h a s p h o g r a p h s, a d d r e s s d g e r s c d g n a m e s o f o e r p e d o p h s, u r n a o f s e x u a l e n c o u n r s w c h r e n, c o m p u r e q u m e n - r m a n o n d l a n d m a g n e s r a g e d e v e s, c o m p u r p r u, c o m p u r s o a r e a n d m a n u a, a n d d o c u m e n n r e g a r d g c o m p u r u s e U n d S s H a F d 6 3 0, C ) p h o g v a o f s e a r c h o f c o m p u r e q u m e n t a n d s b e c a u s e w a r r a n t d s e a r c h e v i d e n c e o f e s v o g (w th th iz iv ta is fo At ts is te title ta in ith in th ir tory la le IS title ta in in th ir tory title IM F@ ific lly ib to ); ta te lls (F la (w in in ith fo te ta in th im in io la tio ffic ie it th iz iz A[ ]a ta to te in lu in lim ite to tic ia th le tro ic fo is tte is tte to tic ic file ic ta s@ it le ft th in to is tio ffic tin t). ite ta te.3 (8 th ir. (w th th riz iz le tro ic to ia ta in in im in in ts llo in tio te ts io te la te ia ); ite ta te.3 (9 th ir. (w th izin te to Ao ta in ta it re la te to th is e@ ffic ie tly tic la in ith t's lis ite in ); ta te io r,.2 (O kla t. (s iz te te is ib le th rizin iz Ae ip ta in in to th is trib tio is la ic teria in vio la tio ta te ity la s@) lk v. ta te.w.2 (T rim (in th ft tra ts tio Am tic th ta in ly lie to ta in to le ta file ffic ie tly ib ite to iz ). ite ta te.3 (9 th ir. (w ffic ie to fo im in lv in In te it lis te ite rela tin to tio lo ita tio ild lly lic it te ia lia to lo in ib itio ild to ys, to ip t, ild y, ll te ia rela te to le ta tio to le in lu in th ile jo ls te ith ild te ip t, in fo tio ig ita tic to ic te in to ts te ftw ls ta tio in te ); ite ta te v. y,.3 (9 th ir. (u ld in lid ity te ip file lim ite to crim in lvin

11 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 203 s e x u a l e x p lo ita tio n o f c h ild r e n ); U n ite d S ta te s v. G le ic h, F. S u p p. 2 d , (D.N.D ) (w a r r a n t a u th o r izin g s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r fo r p h o to g r a p h s, p ic tu r e s, vis u a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s, or vid e o s th a t in c lu d e d s e x u a l c o n d u c t b y m in o r, a s d e fin e d b y N o r th D a k o ta s ta tu te, m e t p a r tic u la r ity re q u ir e m e n t), a ff'd, F.3 d (8 th C ir ); U n ite d S ta te s v. H a ll, F.3 d 9 8 8, (7 th C ir ) (w h e n ite m s lis te d in w a r r a n t q u a lifie d b y p h r a s e s th a t ite m s s o u g h t w e r e r e la te d to c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y, p a r tic u la r ity req u ir e m e n t s a tis fie d ); U n ite d S ta te s v. C lo u g h, F. S u p p. 2 d 8 4, (D. M e ) (w a r r a n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e a u - th o r izin g s e a r c h o f At e x t d o c u m e n ts@ a n d Ad ig ita l im a g e s@ vio la te d p a r tic u la r ity req u ir e m e n t w h e n th e r e w e r e An o r e s tric tio n s o n th e s e a r c h, n o r e fe r e n c e s to s ta t - u te s, a n d n o r e f e r e n c e s to c r im e s o r ille g a lity@) ; S ta te v. W ib le, 5 1 P.3 d 8 3 0, (W a s h A p p ) (w a r r a n t p a r tic u la r w h e n it lim ite d s e a r c h to im a g e s o f c h ild r e n e n g a g e d in s e x u a lly e x p lic it a c tivity a s d e fin e d b y c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y statu te ); c f. U n ite d S ta te s v. M a x w e ll, 4 5 M.J , (C.A.A.F ) (reje c tin g c h a lle n g e to w a r r a n t th a t in c lu d e d p e r s o n s w h o c o u ld h a v e u n k n o w in g ly r e c e iv e d c h ild p o r n o g - r a p h y in th e ir e m a il m a ilb o x e s b e c a u s e to n a r r o w th e fie ld to o n ly th o s e w h o h a d k n o w in g ly re c e iv e d im a g e s w o u ld h a v e r e q u ir e d a d v a n c e s e a r c h o f m a ilb o x e s to a s c e r ta in if file s h a d b e e n o p e n e d ). 1 7 S e e U n ite d S ta te s v. G le ic h, F.3 d 6 0 8, (8 th C ir ) (w a r r a n t a u th o r izin g s e a r c h o f h o m e a n d p e r s o n a l c o m p u te r fo r Ap h o to g r a p h s, p ic - tu r e s, vis u a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o r v id e o s in a n y fo r m th a t in c lu d e s e x u a l c o n d u c t b y a m in o r@ p e r m itte d s e a r c h o f a ll th r e e c o m p u te r s in h o u s e ); T h o r n, F.3 d a t (w a r r a n t th a t a u th o r iz e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f e le c tro n ic s to r a g e m e d ia c o n ta in in g im a g e s o f m in o r s e n g a g e d in s e x u a l a c ts s u f fic e d to p r o v id e a u th o r ity to e x a m in e c o n te n ts o f vario u s c o m p u te r - r e la te d m e d ia ); U n ite d S ta te s v. C a m p o s, F.3 d , (1 0 th C ir ) (w a r r a n t p a r tic u la r w h e n it a u th o r iz e d, in te r a lia, s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t th a t m a y b e u s e d to d e p ic t o r d is trib u te c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y); U n ite d S ta te s v. U p h a m, F.3 d 5 3 2, (1 s t C ir ), c e r t. d e n ie d, U.S ( ) (u p h o ld in g w a r r a n t is s u e d fo r A[ a ]n y a n d a ll c o m p u te r s o ftw a r e a n d h a r d w a r e,... c o m p u te r d is k s, d is k d r iv e s@ in h o u s e o f w o m a n s u s - p e c te d o f s e n d in g a n d r e c e ivin g c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o v e r In te r n e t); D a v is v. G r a c e y, F.3 d , (1 0 th C ir ) (Ae q u ip m e n t... p e r ta in in g to th e d is trib u tio n o r d is p la y o f p o r n o g r a p h ic m a te r ia l@ w a s s u ffic ie n tly p r e c is e to lim it s e a r c h to c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t c o n n e c te d w ith th a t crim in a l a c tivity); U n ite d S ta te s v. A lb e r t, F. S u p p. 2 d 2 6 7, (D. M a s s ) (w a r r a n t p a r tic u la r w h e n it a u th o r iz e d s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f c o m p u te r, d is k s, s o ftw a r e, a n d s to r a g e d e v ic e s w h e n th e r e w a s p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t th e c o m p u te r c o n ta in e d m o r e th a n im a g e s o f c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y, g iv e n th a t th e As e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o f th e c o m p u te r a n d its r e la te d s to r a g e e q u ip m e n t w a s th e o n ly p r a c tic a l w a y to o b ta in th e

12 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l Rejection of the Document Search and Container Analogy: A ASpecial Approach@ Some authorities reject the container analogy and view searches for data on a computer much differently than paper document searches. 18 The leading case, United States v. Carey, 19 espouses the view that law enforcement officers must take a Aspecial approach@ 20 to the search of data contained on computers and that the Afile cabinet analogy may be inadequate.@ 21 This position is premised on the fact that Aelectronic storage is likely to contain a greater quantity and variety of information than any previous storage method.@ 22 As one judge has argued: im a g e s@) ; U n ite d S ta te s v. A lle n, 5 3 M.J , (C.A.A.F ) (w a r r a n t p a r tic u la r w h e n it a u th o r iz e d s e a r c h fo r c o m p u te r file s r e la tin g to n u d e p h o to g r a p h s o f ju v e n ile s, In te r n e t lo c a tio n s o f s u c h m a te ria l, o r lis ts o f s u c h file s ); S ta te v. W ib le, 5 1 P.3 d 8 3 0, (W a s h. A p p ) (w a r r a n t fo r c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y s a tis fie s p a r tic u la r ity re q u ir e m e n t if it lim its s e iz a b le ite m s b y s p e c ifyin g typ e o f m a te r ia l th a t q u a lifie s a s c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y); S ta te v. M a x w e ll, A.2 d , (N.J. S u p e r ) (in c a s e in v o lvin g u s e o f te le p h o n e to c a ll c h ild v ic tim s o f s e x u a l a s s a u lt, w a r r a n t th a t a u th o r iz e d s e a r c h o f c o m p u te r fo r Ac o m p u t e r a d d r e s s b o o k s@ v a lid ); S ta te v. P a ts c h e c k, 6 P.3 d 4 9 8, (N.M. A p p ) (in p r o s e c u tio n fo r s e x u a l o ffe n s e s a g a in s t c h ild r e n, w a r r a n t th a t s p e c ifie d c o m p u t e r to b e s e a r c h e d fo r Ap o r n o g r a p h ic m o v ie s@ v a lid ); S ta te v. L e h m a n, A.2 d 2 5 6, (M e ) (w a r r a n t n o t o v e r b r o a d w h e n it a u th o riz e d s e iz u r e o f a ll c o m p u te r - r e la te d e q u ip m e n t in s u s p e c t's h o u s e w h e n p o lic e k n e w o n ly th a t th e im a g e s o f s e x u a lly e x p lo ite d g irls w e r e ta k e n b y a d ig ita l c a m e r a a n d d o w n lo a d e d to a c o m p u t e r ); c f. U n ite d S ta te s v. L a m b, F. S u p p , (N.D.N.Y ) (w a r r a n t s a tis - fie d p a r tic u la r ity re q u ir e m e n t in c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e s e e k in g s u b s c r ib e r in fo r m a tio n a n d e le c tro n ic m a il m e s s a g e s s e n t to a n d r e c e iv e d b y 7 8 in d ivid u a ls fr o m In te r n e t s e r v ic e p r o v id e r w h e n m e s s a g e s w e r e in s trum e n ta litie s o f crim e u s e d b y c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y tra f fic k e r s to lo c a te a n d c o m m u n ic a te w ith p e r s o n s o f lik e m in d ). 1 8 S e e R a p h a e l W in ic k, S e a r c h e s a n d S e iz u r e s o f C o m p u te r s a n d C o m p u te r D a ta, 8 H. J.L. & T E C H. 7 5, ( ) ( A n a n a lo g y b e tw e e n a c o m p u te r a n d a c o n ta in e r o v e r s im p lifie s a c o m p le x a r e a o f F o u r th A m e n d m e n t d o c trin e a n d ig n o r e s th e rea litie s o f m a s s iv e m o d e r n c o m p u te r s to r a g e.@) ; s e e a ls o S u s a n W. B r e n n e r & B a r b a r a A. F r e d e r ik s e n, C o m p u te r S e a r c h e s a n d S e iz u r e s :

13 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 205 A c o m p u te r is fu n d a m e n ta lly d iffe re n t fro m a w ritin g, o r a c o n ta in e r o f w rit in g s, b e c a u s e o f its c a p a c ity to h o ld a va s t a rra y o f in fo rm a tio n in m a n y d iffe re n t fo rm s, to s o rt, p ro c e s s, a n d tra n s fe r in fo rm a tio n in a d a ta b a s e, to p ro vid e a m e a n s fo r c o m m u n ic a tio n via e - m a il, a n d to c o n n e c t a n y g ive n u s e r to th e in te rn e t. A c o m p u te r m a y b e c o m p ris e d o f a w id e va rie ty o f p e r s o n a l in fo rm a tio n, in c lu d in g b u t n o t lim ite d to w o rd p ro c e s s in g d o c u m e n ts, fin a n c ia l re c o rd s, b u s in e s s rec o rd s, e le c tro n ic m a il, in te rn e t a c c e s s p a th s, a n d p re vio u s ly d e le te d m a te ria ls. B e c a u s e o f th e s e d iffe re n c e s, th e s e izu re o f a c o m p u te r ra is e s m a n y is s u e s b e yo n d th o s e th a t m ig h t p e rta in to m e re w rit in g s.... A Aw ritin g@ is s im p ly n o t p a rtic u la r e n o u g h to w a rra n t a re a - s o n a b le p e r s o n to c o n c lu d e th a t it in c lu d e s a c o m p u te r b e - c a u s e a w ritin g a n d a c o m p u te r a re tw o fu n d a m e n ta lly d iffe r e n t th in g s, b o th in d e g re e a n d in k in d.... M o re o ve r, F o u rth A m e n d m e n t a n a lys is r e g a r d in g th e s e a r c h a n d s e izu re o f c o m p u te rs m u s t b e a p p ro a c h e d c a u tio u s ly a n d n a rro w ly b e c a u s e o f th e im p o rta n t p riva c y c o n c e rn s in h e re n t in th e n a tu re o f c o m p u te rs, a n d b e c a u s e th e 2 3 te c h n o lo g y in th is a re a is r a p id ly g ro w in g a n d c h a n g in g. S o m e U o e d s u e s, 8 M H. T E L E C O M M. T E C H. L. R E 3 9, , ) e g r s o m e o f e d r e n c e s b e e e n s e a r c h e s o f a p e r d o c u m e n a n d c o m p u r - g e n e r a d e v i d e n c a n d m a g a t c o u r s h o u p o s e r e - s n s o n c o m p u r s e a r c h e s s u c h a s g e s e a r c h b y e s, b y r e q u g a s e c o n d w a r r a n t r r m g d s, a n d b y p o s g e a m e s r c o n d u c g e s e a r c h F d C a t n ; s e e a o P e o p v. G a 3 0 P d 1 4 5, o ) a r e z, J d s e n g ) e c a u s e c o m p u r s p r o c e s s p e r s o n a l r m a n a n d e c, e y u e h e h n e d p r o c n u n d e r e F o u r A m e n d m e n t a g a s t u n r e a s o n a b s e a r c h e s o r s e u r e s. 2 1 C a r e y, F d a t W k, s u p r a n o 1 8, a t ; s e e a o S e a r c h o f W. W e s t E n d, F. S u p p. 2 d 9 5 3, ) s s e r g a t s e a r c h e s o f c o m p u u e a r e l s c r u y o f e p a r u r q u e n b e c a u s e, r a, o f e x o r d a r y v o m e o f r m a n a t m a y b e s r e. 2 3 P e o p v. G a 3 0 P d 1 4 5, o ) a r e z, J nres lv Is IC V. (2 (s ttin fo th th iffe tw Ap ts te te e@ in ta in in th ts ld im tric tio te lim itin th file typ irin fo in te in le file im in tim fr fo tin th )..3 (1 th ir. )..7 ls le ll,.3 (C lo (M tin., is tin (AB te in fo tio ffe ts th req ir ig te te tio th th in le iz.@).3 in ic te ls In re (N.D Ill. (a tin th ters req ir Ac fu tin th tic la ity re irem t@ in te lia th Ae tra in lu in fo tio th to d@) le ll,.3 (C lo (M tin.,

14 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 Other arguments that searches of computers are different include the assertion that computers Apresent the tools to refine searches in ways that cannot be done with hard copy files. When confronting a file cabinet full of papers, there may be no way to determine what to seize without doing some level of review of everything in the cabinet@; in contrast, computer technology affords a variety of methods by which the government may tailor a search to focus on documents that evidence the alleged criminal activity. 24 Those methods, it has been asserted, include limiting searches by date range, doing key word searches, limiting searches by file type, and Afocusing on certain software programs.@ 25 Under this Aspecial approach,@ courts have imposed several unique requirements: a search warrant seeking to seize computers or computer equipment must specify that it covers such items and the warrant must Ainclude measures to direct the subsequent search of a computer.@ 26 Police officers may also have to limit the search by Aobserving files types and titles listed on the directory, doing a key word search for relevant terms, or reading portions of each file stored in the memory.@ 27 d s e n g 2 4 S e a r c h o f W. W e s t E n d, F. S u p p. 2 d a t P e o p v. G a 3 0 P d 1 4 5, o ) a r e z, J d s e n g s e e a o S e a r c h o f W. W e s t E n d, F. S u p p. 2 d a t a g a t a n s u g m a g h a d a u o r r e q u e g o v e r n m e n t w e a r c h p r o c o l a t a t m p e n s u r e a t e s e a r c h w n o t e x c e e d c o n s - n a l b o u n d. 2 7 U n d S s v. C a F d , C s e e a o P e o p v. C a r r a, N d 8 0 0, S u p. C ) g a t p o e d o r d n o t h a v e r h t u n d e r w a r r a n t o p e n c o m p u r e r s b a s e d o n n a m e a s s o c d w a t e r r e G r a n d J u r y S u b p o e n a D u - c e s T e c u m D a t e d N o v e m b e r 1 5, , F. S u p p. 1 1, ) a s e d o n g o v e r n m e n c o n c e s s n, a s s e r g a t y w o r d s e a r c h o f r m a n s r e d o n c o m p u t e r w o u e a l r m a n e b e r e v a n t g r a n d v e s a n P e o p v. G a 3 0 P d 1 4 5, o ) a r e z, J d - s e n g ) S a r c h e s m a y b e d a v o s e a r c h g s n o t c d e d e is tin ). In re le ll,.3 (C lo (M tin., is tin ); ls In re (m in ta in in th is in is tra te th ity to ir to fo llo As to th te ts to th th ill titu tio s@) ite ta te rey,.3 (1 th ir. ); ls le tu.y.s.2 (N.Y t. (s ta tin th lic id id ig to te file fo ld ia te ith th fo ld ); In (S.D.N.Y (b t's io tin th ke in fo tio to ld rev in fo tio lik ly to le to jury in tig tio ); le ll,.3 (C lo (M tin., is tin (A[ ]e lim ite to id in file in lu in th

15 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 207 To restrict the scope of a search of a computer that contains intermingled documents, those rejecting the premise that computer searches are just another form of a document search maintain that merely obtaining a warrant to search for specified items is insufficient. 28 Instead, w e n r c e m e n t m u s t e n g a g e e r m e d s p o f s o g u s e s o f d o c u m e n a n d e n o n s e a r c h e o n e s s p e c d a w a n W h e o e r s c o m e a c s s n t d o c u m e n s o g d w n t d o c u m e n a t e y c a n n o t a s b e s o d a t e s, e o e m a y s e a l o r h o e d o c u m e n p e n d g a p p l b y a m a g o f e c o n d n s a n d n s o n a e r s e a r c h u g h e d o c u m e n. T h e m a g s h o u e n q u o e s p e c a w a n t w h h 2 9 e o f s a s o u g h [L ]a fo in th in te ia te te rtin va rio typ ts th ly th ifie in rra t. re ffic ro re le va ts in te rm in le ith ir re le va ts th th fe ib ly rte th ite th ffic rs ld th ts in ro va is tra te th itio lim ita tio fu rth th ro th ts is tra te ld th re ire ffic rs to ify in rra ic typ file re t. w a r r a n t b y `o b s e r v in g file s typ e s a n d title s lis t e d in th e d ir e c tory, d o in g a k e y w o r d s e a r c h fo r r e le v a n t te r m s, o r r e a d in g p o r tio n s o f e a c h file s to r e d in th e m e m ory@) ; W in ic k, s u p r a n o te 1 8, a t (AO n c e o ffic e r s s e iz e la r g e q u a n titie s o f c o m p u te r m e m ory, th e y h a v e th r e e m e th o d s o f d is tin g u is h in g r e le v a n t fro m irrele v a n t in fo r m a - tio n. O ffic e r s c a n e ith e r r e a d th r o u g h p o r tio n s o f e a c h file s to r e d in th e m e m o ry, c o n d u c t a k e y w o r d s e a r c h o f th e d a ta s to r e d o n th e d is k s, o r p r in t o u t a d ir e c to r y o f th e title a n d file typ e fo r e a c h file o n th e d is k.@). 2 8 T h e o r ig in o f th e in te r m in g le d d o c u m e n t d o c trin e c a n b e tra c e d to a n o n - c o m p u te r c a s e, w h ic h in v o lv e d a la r g e v o lu m e o f m a te ria l. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v. T a m u r a, F.2 d 5 9 1, (9 th C ir ) (g o v e r n m e n t c a n a v o id v io la tin g F o u r th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b y s e a lin g d o c u m e n ts p e n d in g is s u a n c e o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t d e ta ilin g fu r th e r s e a r c h ); s e e a ls o U n it e d S ta te s v. S h illin g, F.2 d , (4 th C ir ) (r e g a r d in g file c a b in e ts, g o v e r n m e n t s h o u ld a d o p t p r o c e d u r e o u t lin e d in T a m ura a n d r e q u ir e s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h w a r r a n t). B u t s e e U n ite d S ta te s v. H ill, F. S u p p. 2 d , (C.D. C a l ) (reje c tin g T a m ura a s a p p lic a b le p r e c e d e n t b e c a u s e w a r r a n t p e r m it te d se iz u r e o f a ll s to r a g e m e d ia ); D a v id J.S. Z iff, N o te, F o u r th A m e n d m e n t L im ita tio n s o n th e E x e c u tio n o f C o m p u t e r S e a r c h e s C o n - d u c te d P u r s u a n t to a W a r r a n t, C O L U M. L. R E V , ( ) (a r g u in g in a p p lic a b ility o f T a m ura to c o m p u te r s e a r c h e s ). 2 9 C a r e y, F.3 d a t (fo o t n o te o m it te d ); a c c o r d U n ite d S ta te s v. W a ls e r, F.3 d 9 8 1, (1 0 th C ir ); U n ite d S ta te s v. C a m p o s, F.3 d , (1 0 th C ir ); W in ic k, s u p r a n o te 1 8, a t

16 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l Discussion of the Premises of the ASpecial Approach@ As this section explains, I believe the Aspecial approach@ is misguided. It has no foundation in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, even by analogy, given its essential postulate that computer technology is so fundamentally different from anything in the past. This postulate has been articulated to include several premises. First, technology not only creates a vastly different system of storage, information, and privacy concerns, it also affords ways to minimize intrusions. Because such methods are available, so the reasoning goes, they must be used. Second, computer abilities are fundamentally different than anything previously known to humankind, mandating rejection of the document and container doctrines that the Supreme Court has articulated to regulate those other types of searches. Third, because of the other premises, computer searches and seizures require the courts to create special search execution rules. Each of these premises and the underlying postulate, I believe, are flawed. Instead, the proper view is that computer and electronic data searches are properly governed by traditional Fourth Amendment rules regulating containers and document searches. a. Should File Names or Types Limit the Scope of a Search? An essential premise of the Aspecial approach@ is that file name labels or suffixes accurately indicate what the file contains. 30 As one commentator has asserted: 3 0 S e e C a r e y, F.3 d a t (AT h is is n o t a c a s e in w h ic h a m b ig u - o u s ly la b e le d file s w e r e c o n ta in e d in th e h a r d d r iv e d ir e c tory. It is n o t a c a s e in w h ic h th e o ffic e r s h a d to o p e n e a c h file d r a w e r b e fo r e d is c o v e r in g its c o n te n ts.@) ; P e o p le v. C a rratu, N.Y.S.2 d 8 0 0, (N.Y. S u p. C t ) (A[ A ] w a r r a n t a u th o rizin g a s e a r c h o f th e te x t file s o f a c o m p u te r fo r d o c u m e n tary evid e n c e p e r ta in in g to a s p e c ific c r im e w ill n o t a u th o r iz e a s e a r c h o f im a g e file s c o n ta in in g e v i d e n c e o f o th e r crim in a l a c tivity.@) ; A m y B a r o n - E v a n s, W h e n th e G o v e r n m e n t S e iz e s a n d S e a r c h e s Y o u r C lie n t's C o m p u te r, 2 7 C H A M P IO N 1 8 ( ) (AF o r tu n a te ly, th e te c h n ic a l m e a n s

17 FILE:C:\WP51\75-1\CLANCY Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:57PM 2005] COMPUTER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 209 C o m p u te r p ro g ra m s s to re in fo rm a tio n in a w id e va rie ty o f fo rm a ts. F o r e xa m p le, m o s t fin a n c ia l s p re a d s h e e ts s to re in fo r m a tio n in a c o m p le te ly d iffe re n t fo rm a t th a n d o w o rd p roc e s s in g p ro g ra m s. S im ila rly, a n in ve s tig a to r re a s o n a b ly fa m ilia r w ith c o m p u te r s s h o u ld b e a b le to d is tin g u is h d a ta b a s e p ro g ra m s, e le c tro n ic m a il file s, te le p h o n e lis ts a n d s to re d vis u a l o r a u d io file s fro m e a c h o th e r. W h e re a s e a r c h w a rra n t s e e k s o n ly fin a n c ia l rec o rd s, la w e n fo r c e m e n t o ffic e r s s h o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d to s e a r c h th ro u g h te le p h o n e lis ts o r w o rd p roc e s s in g file s a b s e n t a s h o w in g o f s o m e re a s o n to b e lie ve th a t th e s e file s c o n ta in 3 1 th e fin a n c ia l re c o rd s s o u g h t. In Carey, the principal case espousing this Aspecial approach,@ the police had a warrant allowing them to search computer files for Anames, telephone numbers, ledger receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribution of controlled substances.@ 32 During the course of the search, Detective Lewis came across files with sexually suggestive titles and the suffix Ajpg.@ 33 Upon opening one of those files, Lewis observed child pornography. He subsequently downloaded numerous other Ajpg@ files and opened some of them, revealing additional child pornography. The Ajpg@ files featured sexually suggestive or obscene names, many including the word Ateen@ or Ayoung.@ 34 Lewis testified that, until he e x t s e a r c h c o m p u t e r s r p a r u r r m a n w o u t m m a g g r o u g h p r a r m a n n o t d e s c r e d a w a r r a n F o r e x a m p, a a l w h c o r c a s e, v a n t s c a n b e o d a n d v a n t o n e s a v o e d r o u g h k e o r d s e a r c h e s. a c h p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e, e g o v e r n m e n t c a n s e a r c h r p r e s w o u t e n e e d o k a t a n y x t. C C o m m o n w e a v. H d s, N d , a s s ) u g g e s e n a m e s c a n c r e a p r o b a b c a u s e s e a r c h c o m p u r r c h p o r n o g r a p h 3 1 S e e W k, s u p r a n o 1 8, a t C a r e y, F d a t a t n. is to fo tic la in fo tio ith ru in th iv te in fo tio ib in t. le in typ ic ite lla re le file is la te irrele id th yw In ild th fo ic tu file ith th to lo te file.@) f. lth in.e.2 (M (s tiv file te le to te fo ild y). in ic te.3.3

18 F IL E :C : \ W P 5 1 \ \ C L A N C Y D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e 1 2 :5 7 P M M IS S IS S IP P I L A W J O U R N A L [V o l. 7 5 opened each file, he really did not know its contents. 35 He claimed: AI wasn't conducting a search for child pornography, that happened to be what these turned out to be.@ 36 Although the trial court denied the motion without making any findings of fact, the appellate court reversed, imposing its own view of the evidence: [T ]h e c a s e tu rn s u p o n th e fa c t th a t e a c h o f th e file s c o n ta in - in g p o rn o g ra p h ic m a te ria l w a s la b e le d AJ P G@ a n d m o s t fe a - tu re d a s e xu a lly s u g g e s tive title. C e r ta in ly a fte r o p e n in g th e first file a n d s e e in g a n im a g e o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y, th e s e a r c h in g o ffic e r w a s a w a recin a d va n c e o f o p e n in g th e rem a in in g file scw h a t th e la b e l m e a n t. W h e n h e o p e n e d th e s u b s e q u e n t file s, h e k n e w h e w a s n o t g o in g to fin d ite m s 3 7 re la te d to d ru g a c tivity a s s p e c ifie d in th e w a r ra n t[.] Putting aside the appellate court's disregard of its limited role in fact-finding, there are significant reasons to reject its position that a search be restricted by file names or file types. Professional investigators recognize that computer users attempt to conceal criminal evidence by storing it Ain random order with deceptive file names,@ thus requiring a search of all the stored data to determine whether it is included in the warrant. 38 Indeed, others have asserted that Ait is impossible to tell 3 5. a t L e w s d, h o w e v e r, a t a g e s c o u c o n e v e n c e p e r e n t a d r u g v e s a n s u c h a s p r e s o f h r o p o n g r o w s y s m a n d h o w s e t u p o p e r a a n d a t d r u g d e a r s o n o b s c u r e o r d g u e e v i d e n c e o f e d r u g a c. a t n a t a t U n d S s v. C a m p o s, F d , C ) u o g a a v s e e a o U n d S s v. M a a M F. S u p p. 2 d , F ) x p e r t e x p e d a t h e c o u n o t o n n a m e s d e r m e w h a t w a s r e s p o n s e w a r r a n E O G H A N C A S E D A L E V E N C E A N D C O M P U T E R C R E d e d ) e s c r g a m e o d a l d a r g p r o c e s s a t c d e s s e v e r a l d r e n t o,. a t , a n d o b s e r v g a t d l e v e n c e a n a r e q u e s e x a m e r s e m p y r g p r o c e d u r e s d p o n u s e l d a a n d a t s s m e o d a l d a r e d u c n c h n u e s, s u c h a s s e a r c h g r s p e c o r d s o r e x c t g o n c e r e s, m a y n o t o n m s p o r n t c e s b u t is ta te th im file ld ta in id tin to in tig tio ic tu Aa yd ic th te it's to te@ th le fte is is th ir tivity..2 ite ta te.3 (1 th ir. (q tin ffid it); ls ite ta te li., (M.D la (e la in th ld re ly file to te in iv to t); Y, IG IT ID IM (2 (d ib in th ic ta filte in th in lu iffe to ls id in th ig ita id lysis ir in to lo filte in to fin te tia lly fu ta th A[ l]e th ic ta tio te iq in fo ific keyw tra in ly ta in file typ ly is im ta lu