Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

IS THIS CORRECT? AND WHAT WOULD YOU DO? (The tool used was not seized)

The Statutory Grounds were not met and between the two items a (Penal Code �1524) :

� Stolen or embezzled property;

�

� Property or things that were used as the means of committing a felony;

�

� Property or things that are in the possession of any person with the intent to use

� them as a means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to

� whom he or she may have delivered them to conceal or prevent discovery;

�

� Property or things that are evidence that tend to show a felony has been

� committed, or that a particular person has committed a felony;

For the Following Property:

Red Primes, Size 26�x15�x13� HDPE Construction, Serial Number PI0180112

Any Consumer electronics such as video cameras, camera, lenses, lens, cases, lens caps, rear caps, audio recording devices, straddle bags, track recorders, camera memory cards, portable media players, digital game consoles, GPS devices, laptop computers and computer hard drives.

I�m requesting permission to seize and search any computer hardware, software, and data, including central processing units (CPU�s), hard disk drives, floppy disk drives, zip disk drives, tape drives, removable media drives, optical/CD-ROM drives, servers workstations, peripheral storage devices, magnetic tapes, cassette tapes, or any other devices or media capable of digital or magnetically storing some or all of the items listed. In order to thoroughly search the computer, it is imperative that it be seized and removed to a controlled environment. This would allow for trained technicians to complete the task without creating a hardship on the occupants of the location that is being searched.

Any personal items identified as belonging to LAX airport passengers i.e. Passports, identification cards, credit cards, travel bags, bag tags, bags, and sunglasses. Any of the aforementioned items not registered and or purchased by (__THE__NAMED____).

Any articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of the persons who have dominion and control over the premises to be searched, including rent receipts, utility bills, telephone bills, address mail, personal identification ,keys, purchase receipts, sales receipts, pawn shop receipts, and photographs, vehicle pink slips and vehicle registrations.

Any �MySpace�, �Facebook� or �Youtube, account information.

The protocol necessitates that items specified in the warrant, in this case essentially all of the data Storage devices, had to be seized so the content could be forensically examined offsite, under forensically sound conditions and by appropriately qualified staff. In which would in detail reveal data of the alleged offense. These contained certain allegations which were absolutely false and others which were intentionally misleading. Because they definitely could had identified the tool used. Not random words, one wouldn�t find a computer nor a lens of such specific size in a Locked safe. ( People v. Cook , 22 Cal.3d 67)

Probable cause to search requires a double linkage:

� One that links the items to be seized to an offense, and

� Another that connects them to the place to be searched.

People v Barnum (1980) 113 CA3d 340, 346, 169 CR 840.

So where�s the tool that was used to illustrate the crime OF THE SILMILAR item that�s actually named. Intentionally stating ALL, for the Record they seized all computers, and computers that was not in my possession, in my grasp, nor my property. (Someone of the household repaired computers)

Although neither the Affiant nor the magistrate knows whether the items are at that location, their probable presence must be able to be inferred from the known facts. People v Superior Court(Brown) (1975) 49 CA3d 160, 167, 122 CR 459; People v Schoennauer (1980) 103 CA3d 398, 410, 163 CR 161. In the case of, United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 1999) stating that a warrant to seize evidence stored on a computer should specify �which type of files are sought�. In United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) government was only entitled to information about the ten players it was investigating, and that the rest of the electronic data was obtained illegally. So with that said the warrants did not adequately describe the offence(s) to which they related.

Fourth Amendment also does not permit open-ended warrants to be later completed while the search and seizure is being conducted or after it is completed. (442 U.S. at 325) Nor would it allow the Officers total discretion to conduct a search to decide what items are seizable, because one wouldn�t want to go back with an un-servable warrant.

The warrant must be framed with as much specificity as the relevant context permits. THE Detail of the specific offence is important because it is a requirement of the statutory scheme. It is a requirement of the statutory scheme because it defines the extent of the authority to search and seize. It informs the person or persons searching of the parameters of the Police's authority to search and seize goods. It also provides the subject of the search with enough information to enable the subject to obtain legal advice about the permitted limits of that search.

Judicial Tips(BG58) would aslo state that clarity pinpoint facts:

Specify the evidence unless the moving papers or the record make it clear what evidence is involved. This is advisable whether or not you grant the motion. Avoid references such as �all evidence found as a result of �� Instead, whenever possible, refer to specific exhibits. E.g., �all items listed in People�s Exhibit 2.�

Look carefully at the description in the warrant and affidavit. Could any law enforcement officer pick up the warrant and immediately recognize the person, location, and property to be searched and items to be seized? Affidavits, however, are often written in haste by nonlawyers. In interpreting affidavits, your emphasis should be on practicality and common sense; avoid hyper technical constructions. Illinois v Gates (1983) 462 US 213, 236, 103 S Ct 2317, 76 L Ed 2d 527; People v Mesa (1975) 14 C3d 466, 469, 121 CR 473.

May I conclude �ANY� would definitely be equivalent to �ALL� which limited by the fact that the warrant only authorized the seizure of "anything upon or in respect of which the offence has been or is suspected of having been committed (or anything which there is reasonable ground to believe will be evidence as to the commission of the offence)".

Describing with particularity the �things to be seized� has two distinct elements. See United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532, 535 (1st Cir.1999).

First, the warrant must describe the things to be seized with sufficiently precise language so that it tells the officers how to separate the items properly subject to seizure from irrelevant items. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S.192, 296 (1927) (�As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.�); Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472, 1478(10th Cir. 1997).

Second, the description of the things to be seized should be limited to the scope of the probable cause established in the warrant. See Inre Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Solid State Devices, Inc., 130 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 1997). Considered together, the elements forbid agents from obtaining �general warrants� and instead require agents to conduct narrow seizures that attempt to �minimize unwarranted intrusions upon privacy.� Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11 (1976).

Now I�m quite sure the warrants did not set out proposed conditions as to how to deal with the property of third parties or other �irrelevant� items.

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California

Looking for something else?