FourthAmendment.com posted this summary and case, although I think John omitted an important “not” when he wrote “the least intrusive measures are required.” The opinion seems to indicate that the court held they were not required, citing Quon, unless I’ve misunderstood:
No special protocol required for a computer search warrant, but vigilance of the court is expected in review to protect against overreaching. Also, the least intrusive measures are required. United States v. Nessland, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7360 (9th cir. May 4, 2015):
It did not specify “‘the precise manner’” of execution, but it was not required to do so. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 1500-01, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006). The officers were searching for a particular type of photographic image and came across the images in question here, which were in plain view. See United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2003). Thereupon, they stopped their search, and did not return to it until they obtained another warrant that covered the new type of images. See United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882, 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008). That approach did not violate Nessland’s rights. Indeed, this case is much like United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2013). There, as here, no special protocol was required, and the officers did follow the procedures set forth in the warrant application. Moreover, as here, there was no real risk of exposing other people’s data, and there was no sign of overreaching. Finally, even if some added protections could have been used here, the officers were not required to seek out and use the least intrusive means. See City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 763, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 2632, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010); Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 554 F.3d 769, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Giberson, 527 F.3d at 889-90. While we are well aware of the need for vigilance, [citing CDT] we are satisfied that Nessland’s rights were not violated by the search.