From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Clough

United States District Court, D. Maine
Apr 9, 2003
255 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Me. 2003)

Opinion

No. CR. 02-74-B-H

April 9, 2003

Gail Fisk Malone, Assistant United States Attorney, Bangor, ME, for United States of America.

David W. Bate, Esq., Bangor, ME, for Alfred Clough, defendant.


ORDER ON GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS


The government's motion to reconsider and the defendant's objection to my order on the defendant's motion to suppress are Denied in part and Granted in part as follows:

1. The parties have resolved the issue of items seized allegedly outside the residential search warrant.

2. United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1980), and In re Application of Lafayette Academy, 610 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1979), remain good law. If they are to be overruled, that is for the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit. I therefore do not alter my ruling that the computer warrant as written was too broad.

3. I believe my original application of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), was correct. The ruling stands.

4. United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532, 534-37 (1st Cir. 1999), is governing law in this circuit. Under Upham, the government did not need the second warrant because the first warrant authorized seizure of the computers and related items. Order of February 27, 2003, at 6 n. 3 (Docket No. 33). Therefore, the motion to suppress is Denied.

I understand that the Justice Department procedures suggest that there may be a different "strategy" for a seizure when the computer is a storage device for evidence of a crime (as here) rather than itself an instrumentality (as in an internet child pornography case). Orin S. Kerr, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations, §§ II.B.l.a., b., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Legal Education (March 2001). The defendant urges the court to recognize the distinction here, but I see no basis for doing so. Upham notes the distinction, 168 F.3d at 536 n. 2, but found it irrelevant where a warrant, like this one, authorizes seizure of the computers themselves.

So Ordered.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Clough

United States District Court, D. Maine
Apr 9, 2003
255 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Me. 2003)
Case details for

U.S. v. Clough

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America v. Alfred CLOUGH, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Maine

Date published: Apr 9, 2003

Citations

255 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Me. 2003)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Amato

The warrant in this case was not limited to any particular files, or to any particular federal crime. The…