There's something almost metaphysically poetic about that last passage
I offer to you another illustration of colorful language in opinions and possibly a question.
What I find interesting about computer searches is that investigators can't really set out an particularity of the area to be searched in the warrant. They have to search the entire area. The general rule is that the warrant permitting a search of a house or a building authorizes the police to search within the building (or curtilage) that is large enough to contain the evidence the police are looking for. In United States v. Evans (1996) the scope of authority for the search is laid out by Judge Posner in quite color language.
If they are looking for a canary's corpse, they can search a cupboard, but not a locket. If they are looking for an adolecent hippopotamus, they can search the living room or garbage but not the microwave oven. If they are searching for cocaine, they can search a container large enough to hold a gram, or perhaps less.
I agree. However, that rule is definately changed in matters of computers. They have to search the entire harddrive. A suspect can't hid his collection of child porn in a folder labeled "Bills".
In Evans, the defendant objected to the search of the trunk of his car, which was parked in the detached garage of the house. The warrant was authorized for a search of drugs in the house and detached garage. Evans complained because he resided at the house (and parked his car there) only intermittently. Posner, however, found no problem with this search:
It seems to us that a car parked in a garage is just another interior container, like a closet or a desk. If, as is the case, the trunk or glove compartment is nto too small to hold what the search warrant authorizes the police to look for, they can search the trunk and the glove compartment...It does not matter whose [car] it is unless it obviously belonged to someone wholly uninvolved in the criminal activities going on in the house. If an innocent guest leaves a trunk in the host's house and the police obtain a search warrant to search the house for something small enough to fit in the trunk, then, unless it is apparent that the trunk does not belong to anyone connected with the illegal activity -- a condition that will rarely be satisfied -- the police can search the trunk and if it happens to contain evidence that the guest is a criminal after all, albeit innocent of any involvement in the criminal activities of his host, he is out of luck.
Harsh, Posner! I'm not sure I agree with this as it could be used by cops to search someone's property which they have no probable cause to search. I guess that the warning my mom gave me about choosing friends wisely is an apt warning. I hope none of my study partners are under surveilance for child porn or illegal gambling. If my computer is at his place when they come to search for the porn could Posner's rule transfer over to computers? Could they search mine too? I venture to say no. Thoughts?
