DHS says, “We don’t need no stinking warrants”

Man, check out that album cover. That really takes me back. I never really loved the Warrant, I have to say – with the possible exception of “Cherry Pie” – although that probably has something to do with the fact that it featured guest C.C. Deville () on guitar. Good times, good times.

Anyway, misty water-colored eighties power metal moment over; on the purpose at hand.  The DHS, in yet another brilliant move (not) has been shot down in  federal court because they failed to obtain a proper warrant before searching a laptop seized at a US border.  Here’s the quick backstory:

• Samuel Hanson was crossing the US border with his laptop
• US customs officials become suspicious because ole’ Sammy appeared nervous during questioning
• They investigate the camera and laptop he is carrying and discover an image of a nude adolescent on the beach
• Customs agents search his laptop 3 separate times, each time finding nothing
• They impound the laptop for six months whereupon they search it again and find a stockpile of thousands of child pornography images

The federal court contends that, since they didn’t have a warrant for the post six-month search, they can’t use the mountain of evidence stored on the hard drive for the purposes of prosecution.  Sigh.  Maybe I’m Monday-morning quarterbacking here, but there are a few points about this that are frustrating to me about this.  They are:

1. Why is it that customs didn’t do a more thorough search during each of the three times they examined the device?  That search was permissible since the judge said the customs folks didn’t need a warrant for the immediate search.  Is there a lack of expertise on the part of customs?  Were they limited in what they could search?  Why the inability to get it done?
2. Why did it take six months to conduct the search that actually found the data?  Is law enforcement really that backed up with forensic examinations?  If we need more resources, let’s get them.  Because in the case of prosecuting the guilty, the lack of forensic “getting-it-done-itude” is apparently a factor in getting evidence thrown out. And for the innocent who have their computers seized for evidentiary purposes, keeping someone’s computer for 6 months while they wait for DHS to get it done seems unfair – 6 months can be 1/4 of the time to obsolescence with computer technology.
3. Why not just get a warrant the first time through?  Isn’t it easier to just err on the side of caution and get the warrant from the get-go?

Meh.  This kind of thing irritates me.  Not only are we unable to prosecute this guy (obviously a creep of the first order – allegedly), but because the evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree,  now we’re also paying for the (inadmissible) forensic examination and further backing up the forensic queue with evidence that can’t be used?  Lame.