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

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

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

d States I. Adiani 452 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006), the court observed that ...the warrant arguably might have provided for a "less invasive search of Adjani's [email) 'inbox' and 'outbox' for the addressees specifically cited in the warrant, as opposed to the wholesale search of the contents of all emai