Fascinating new computer search and seizure case -- albeit wrongly reasoned, I think -- from the Alaska Court of Appeals suppressing evidence found in a computer search, showing wish to push back against broad computer searches. A thread. public.courts.alaska.gov/web/appellate/… 
In the case, the govt gets a warrant to enter McRoberts' house and search all computers there for evidence of McRoberts' financial crimes. Pohland is McRoberts' friend who lives in an apartment in McRoberts' home. Cops enter house and end up going into the separate apartment.
They find Pohland's laptop in the apartment and search it under the authority of the warrant. Search of laptop reveals lots of text messages b/w Pohland and McRoberts. Text messages show Pohland involved in official misconduct with McRoberts, leading to charges against Pohland.
Appellate court says contents of Pohland's laptop had to be suppressed, overturns conviction. Court could have ruled that the warrant didn't extend to Pohland's apartment. But it didn't: Instead, assumes warrant allowed entry into apartment, says warrant defective on two grounds.
First, court seems to rule that warrant needed to establish probable cause (PC) that there would be evidence of crime on each individual computer searched. There was PC evidence would be in house here, but not PC there would be evidence of the crime on that particular laptop.
Second, court rules that warrant wasn't particular b/c warrant didn't limit scope of search enough and permitted a very wide-ranging search.
I'm sympathathetic to the court's concerns--more in a minute -- but I think the reasoning here is a mess. The requirement of PC is PC that evidence will be in the "place" to be searched. That allows a full search of that particular place for the evidence described.
You can't say that PC is needed for individual storage devices found in a place to be searched; that's not the "place," but a means of storing evidence. And if that were the test, easy to defeat any warrant: Bad guys just need a lot of electronic storage devices, no PC for any 1.
Similarly, the court's reasoning for why the search wasn't particular is pretty jumbled. Let me propose a sympathetic rewrite: I think the Court's concerns could be better expressed as pointing to a use restriction on nonresponsive data.
The Court should have considered whether there was PC of crime in the house and if the stuff found at issue was within the category permitted seized in the warrant. If it was, proper to seize it under the warrant. OTOH, if the evidence was beyond the scope, court should have
ruled violated 4A because it was non-responsive to the warrant. That is, there should be no plain view for computer searches, or more accurately, seizure of it is unreasonable if non-responsive. More on the argument here: texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/upl…
Anyway, interesting case for how the court is pushing back on doctrine, looking for a "Riley moment," wanting to limit searches *somehow.* Expect more of these cases coming down the pike. /end
