,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Ohio App. Ct: Warrant for drug evidence at home, including "computer hardware believed to be instrumental to the trafficking in controlled substances," doesn't allow seizure of DVR found in bedroom attached to home surveillance video cameras. (Thread.) supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6… 
Although the op isn't totally clear, seems like the DVR had a video feed from a camera that was pointed at where drugs were found, so defendants tried and succeeded at suppressing the video evidence b/c the DVR was held to be outside scope of warrant.
I'm not persuaded by the opinion, though. The court seems to think the officers needed to specifically say they were going to seize a DVR, as compared to other evidence. In the court's apparent view, general language of what to seize doesn't allow seizure of specific items.
But the general language allows a seizure of that which is within the general description. The real question is about whether the 4th allows the seizure of digital hardware that may or may not have the evidence sought for later search of that evidence.
I think the answer to that is yes, as other courts have held, with the caveat that in my view there should be use restrictions. See here. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
But there's also a way in which the Ohio case is simply reflecting a poorly drafted warrant. Better drafting may have solved the problem.
