United States v. Clutter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that seizure of defendant’s computers while he was in jail “did not meaningfully interfere with his possessory interests”
• concluding that a warrantless seizure of the defendant’s computers “did not meaningfully interfere with his possessory interests” because he was in jail and so not in possession of the computers at the time of the seizure
• recognizing that “[f]or most people, their computers are their most private spaces”
• holding that the defendant’s father [a former policeman] had common authority over the defendant’s computers inside the family home such that he could consent to their seizure even if he did not have common authority over the contents of the computers
• which in turn quoted Place , the Supreme Court case the balancing test originates from
• upholding temporary seizure to secure warrant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).