Epstein Secrets

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11 (1976). Most recently„th Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circuit

rth Amendment's particularity requirement and overbreadth prohibition are critical in the context of computer searches. See, e.g., United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1149 (91h Cir. 2006) ("[w]e understand the heightened specificity concerns in the computer context, given the vast amounts of data

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.I I (1976). Most recently, in Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circu

rth Amendment's particularity requirement and overbreadth prohibition are critical in the context of computer searches. See, e.g., United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[wje understand the heightened specificity concerns in the computer context, given the vast amounts of data

ument's "seizure" only if during that brief perusal the document's "otherwise incriminating character becomes obvious." 668 F.2d at 1267. Heldt and Andresen do not address computers, and their guidance of "brief perusal" and "minimization of invasions of privacy" to a complete physical and logical foren

ly recognizing that computer data relevant to a warrant calbe easily hidden, and may require an in depth forensic review. See, e.g., United States. Adjani, 452 F. 3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (computer files are easy to disguise or misname). Furthermore, courts are increasingly recognizing that computer fo