United States v. Conrad » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

United States v. Conrad

United States v. Conrad

Case Date: 08/07/2013
Citation: United States v. Conrad, No. 3:12–cr–134–J–34TEM, 2013 WL 4028273 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2013)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Thomas E. Morris
Rule(s): 4th Amendment
Issues:

Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that: (1) the warrant was overbroad and insufficiently particular, (2) the warrant was executed unreasonably, and (3) the government did not act in good faith in carrying out the warrant.

Resolution:

The Magistrate recommended that Defendant’s motion to suppress be denied, and the District Judge agreed. The scope of  the warrant was sufficiently limited and not overbroad. Additionally, the warrant was not executed unreasonably, as there was no evidence that the five months it took to analyze Defendant’s electronic devices was unnecessary. Further, the government acted in good faith, since the warrant was not so facially deficient as to place notice on the government that it was not valid.

Relevant Documents:

Motion to Suppress (Doc. 43)

Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress (Doc. 54)

Report and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 85)

Objections to Report and Recommendations (Doc. 88)

Order on Motion to Suppress (Doc. 97)

E-Discovery Issues: Admissibility, Motion to Suppress
E-discovery Tags: IP Address, Mirror Imaging, Preservation and Collection, Sources of ESI
E-discovery subjects: Computer, Hard drive

Published: December 21st, 2017

Category: Uncategorized


Deprecated: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /h/cnswww-ediscovery.law/ediscovery.law.ufl.edu/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5411

Comments are closed.