Epstein Secrets

84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998)(section of warrant which authorized seizure of all computers, all computer storage devices, and all computer so

ecause it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998Xsection of warrant which authorized seizure of all computers, all computer storage devices, and all computer sof

ecause it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States v. Clough; 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); United States. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998)(section of warrant which authorized seizure of all computers, all computer storage devices, and all computer so

because it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States. Clough; 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

use "what the government seeks is a license to roam through everything- n the computer without limitation and without standards"); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D. Me. 2003) (warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search and no references to statutes, cri

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

se "what the government seeks is a license to roam through everything_ in the computer without limitation and without standards"); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D. Me. 2003) (warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search and no references to statutes, cri

d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003Xwarrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); United States'. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. I 998)(section of warrant which authorized seizure of all computers, all computer storage devices, and all computer s

because it authorized agents to seize everything even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States'. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003Xwarrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); Un