## Facts

- Erin Fouche’s Compaq laptop was stolen from her car in Irvine on October 30, 2002.
- On November 25, 2002, officers executed a search warrant at an Anaheim residence shared by Kelli Marie Balint and John Stephens.
- Officers found Fouche’s Compaq laptop on a living room sofa, open and powered on; it contained data identifying Fouche as the owner and reflected repeated use between the theft and the search.
- Officers also found a damaged WinBook laptop near the couch and a Toshiba laptop in a bedroom closet; serial numbers had been removed from all three computers.
- Balint was not present during the search but soon contacted police, claimed the Compaq was hers, said she bought it for $200, and admitted she thought it was possibly stolen and did not want to know.
- Balint gave shifting accounts about where and when she acquired the laptops and whether she believed they were stolen.
- The warrant authorized seizure of certain specifically listed stolen items and also authorized seizure of “any items tending to show dominion and control” of the premises, providing examples such as bills and personal documents; laptops were not specifically listed.
- After seizing the laptop, officers obtained a second warrant to examine its contents.

## Issues

1. Whether officers exceeded the scope of a search warrant by seizing an open laptop under a clause authorizing seizure of “any items tending to show dominion and control” of the premises.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the seizure of the laptop did not exceed the warrant’s scope because a laptop can function as a container for information showing occupancy and control of the residence.
- The court rejected the argument that omission of “computers” from the warrant’s illustrative list excluded laptops from the dominion-and-control clause.
- The court viewed obtaining a second warrant to search the laptop’s data as consistent with reasonable, cautious execution of the warrant.

## Legal Principles

- A warrant authorizing seizure of “any items tending to show dominion and control” may cover items not expressly listed if they reasonably can contain evidence of occupancy or control.
- Computers may be treated as “containers” for documentary evidence in electronic form, analogous to physical files, boxes, or briefcases that may hold records described in a warrant.
- An illustrative list of examples in a warrant does not limit broad authorizing language unless the warrant clearly makes the list exhaustive.
- Seizing an item within a warrant’s scope and later obtaining separate judicial authorization to search its contents supports compliance with Fourth Amendment particularity concerns.

## Conclusion

A dominion-and-control clause authorizing seizure of “any items” showing occupancy and control permitted officers to seize an open laptop found during the search, even though computers were not specifically enumerated, because the laptop reasonably could contain documentary evidence of residence control.


People v. Balint, 138 Cal. App. 4th 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)