Opinion ID: 3037925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obtaining and Executing the Search Warrant

Text: On January 23, 2004, based on the facts recited above and attested to in FBI Agent Cloney’s affidavit (which was affixed to the warrant), a federal magistrate judge granted the government an arrest warrant for Adjani and a search warrant covering Adjani’s Venice residence, his vehicle, his person and the residence of the individual who had stolen the confidential information from Paycom. The warrant specifically sought “evidence of violations of [18 U.S.C. § 875(d)]: Transmitting Threatening Communications With Intent to Commit Extortion.” Further, the warrant expressly authorized seizure of: 5g. Records, documents and materials containing Paycom’s or Epoch’s master client control docu- ments, Paycom’s or Epoch’s email database, or other company information relating to Paycom or Epoch. 5h. Records, documents and materials which reflect communications with Christopher Mallick, Clay Andrews, Joel Hall or other employees or officers of Paycom or Epoch. 5i. Any and all evidence of travel, including hotel bills and receipts, gasoline receipts, plane tickets, bus tickets, train tickets, or any other documents related to travel from January 8, 2004 to the present. .... 5k. Computer, hard drives, computer disks, CD’s, and other computer storage devices. With respect to the computer search, the warrant prescribed the process to be followed: “In searching the data, the comUNITED STATES v. ADJANI 7585 puter personnel will examine all of the data contained in the computer equipment and storage devices to view their precise contents and determine whether the data falls within the items to be seized as set forth herein.” Additionally, it noted that “[i]n order to search for data that is capable of being read or intercepted by a computer, law enforcement personnel will need to seize and search . . . . [a]ny computer equipment and storage device capable of being used to commit, further, or store evidence of the offense listed above.” On January 26, 2004, agents observed Reinhold driving Adjani, in a car registered to him, to his meeting with Paycom. While Adjani went into a hotel, Reinhold slipped into the backseat of his car, placing curtains over the windows. At this point, agents proceeded to search Adjani’s car. That same day, agents executed the search warrant for Adjani’s Venice residence. There they found and seized various computers and hard drives, including Reinhold’s computer, which were later sent to an FBI computer lab to be searched. During that search process, the hard drive from Reinhold’s computer revealed certain email correspondence between Reinhold and Adjani, implicating Reinhold in the extortion plot and supporting a charge of conspiracy against both of them. The defendants successfully sought suppression of these seized email communications in the district court. This appeal requires us to determine whether the agents permissibly searched Reinhold’s computer; whether the warrant satisfied our specificity standards; and whether the emails seized fell within the scope of the otherwise properly issued warrant.