Page 32 - TPA Journal September- October 2017
P. 32
of the warrant.” As “many circuits have privileged information. Moreover, the taint
recognized,” the Fourth Amendment team review only took eight months. And the
“contain[s no] requirements about when the Government completed its forensic
search or seizure is to occur or the duration.” examination less than four months after it
Courts have therefore consistently “permitted received the last of the hard drives and
some delay in the execution of search warrants computers from the taint team. These periods
involving computers because of the are within the typical periods of delay in
complexity of the search” and they often executing warrants that courts have permitted
restrict their “analysis of the delay in executing due to the complexity involved in searching
. . . warrants [to] consider[ing] only whether computers.
the delay rendered the warrants stale.”
Moreover, Jarman has not argued that the delay
Jarman contends that the district court erred by caused the warrant to become stale. Even if he
not granting suppression because the had, “[n]umerous cases hold that a delay of
Government violated the Fourth Amendment several months” or even years “between the
and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 by seizure of electronic evidence and the
taking twenty-three months to finish searching completion of the government’s review of [it] .
the data it seized. His overarching argument is . . is reasonable” and does not render the
that this delay was unreasonable. warrant stale, especially in child-pornography
cases.
The Government counters that Jarman is not For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
entitled to suppression on this basis. Jarman, district court is AFFIRMED.
the Government asserts, waived the claim that
its actions violated Rule 41. Moreover, the U.S. v. Jarman, No. 16-30468, 5th Cir., Feb.
Government argues, it acted reasonably under 01, 2017.
the circumstances, and the only case Jarman
relies upon is distinguishable.
ROBBERY ELEMENTS – BUTTER KNIFE AS A
We hold that the district court did not err by DEADLY WEAPON
not granting suppression based on the duration The issue in this case is whether there is
of the Government’s post-seizure review of the sufficient evidence to affirm the jury’s deadly-
data it seized from Jarman’s home. First, Jarman weapon finding elevating robbery to
waived the claim that the Government’s aggravated robbery. Because we conclude that
actions violated Rule 41… there is and that the court of appeals erred to
hold otherwise, we will reverse its judgment
Second, Jarman is not entitled to suppression and remand this cause for the lower court to
under the Fourth Amendment because the address Appellant’s remaining points of error.
duration of the Government’s review of the Kevin Kimp, Appellant, was charged by
seized data was reasonable under the indictment with aggravated 1 robbery after he
circumstances. The taint process here was robbed two cashiers working at a RaceTrac
designed to protect Jarman’s clients’ privileged convenience store using a butter knife. The
information. Courts have recognized that, in indictment alleged that Kimp intentionally or
such circumstances, it is appropriate to screen knowingly threatened (Amelia) or placed her in
26 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
