This document summarizes several legal issues that arise in computer crime investigations and prosecutions. It discusses warrants for searching and seizing computers and electronic communications, what constitutes computer trespass, fixing improperly executed warrants, search and seizure law regarding computers including consent and time limits, and tracing electronic communications.

1. Computer Crime and Digital Evidence Legal Issues Ivan Orton Complex Prosecutions & Investigations Division King County Prosecutor’s Office 500 Fourth Ave., Rm. 840 Seattle, WA 98104 [email_address] 206 296-9082

3. Fixing a Bad Warrant, Already Executed

8. It is axiomatic that when a search warrant properly describes the things to be searched and seized, it also authorizes law enforcement officers to search inside any container in which the items could reasonably be found. State v. Mazzaferro, Div I, 2007 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

9. The Grow House

10. The Card Reader

21. Workplace Searches

23. Evidence Suppressed?

25. Now Should Evidence be Suppressed?

40. Out of State Providers - A New Law Requires compulsory process recipient to produce records within 20 days Applies to any person or corporation who has conducted business or engaged in transactions occurring at least in part in Washington Effective June 12 2008

47. Time to Conduct Search Washington Court Rule CrR 2.3(c) [The warrant] shall command the officer to search, within a specified period of time not to exceed 10 days, the person, place, or thing named for the property or person specified.

50. Time to Conduct Search State v. Grenning COA No. 32426-1-II (Jan. 8, 2008) A forensic examination of information stored on copies of a hard drive may extend beyond the 10-day deadline specified in CrR 2.3(c), provided the computer is seized within the 10-day period. A delay in analyzing the information stored on a hard drive will only result in the suppression of evidence if: (1) the delay caused a lapse in probable cause; (2) it created unfair prejudice to the defendant; or (3) officers acted in bad faith.

52. Fourth Amendment US Constitution No Expectation of Privacy in Records Held by Third Parties U.S. v. Miller (1976)

53. WA Constitution Article One, Section 7 No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs or his home invaded without authority of law Broader than 4th Amendment U.S. v. Miller may not be law in Washington is not the

65. SpoofMail 1.17

67. SpoofMail 1.17

72. Ivan Orton Complex Prosecutions & Investigations Division King County Prosecutor’s Office 500 Fourth Ave., Rm. 840 Seattle, WA 98104 [email_address] 206 296-9082