People v.

Balint
(2006) 138 Cal. App. 4
th
200.

FACTS: Investigating officers seized an open laptop computer while executing a
search warrant at a residence. The laptop was not listed in the warrant, but
was seized under the dominion and control clause in the warrant.

PROCEDURAL Appeal following a jury trial based on the denial of a motion to suppress
HISTORY: evidence.

ISSUE: Whether officers exceeded the scope of a search warrant when they
confiscated an open laptop computer under a clause authorizing seizure of
any items tending to show dominion and control of the premises
searched?

RULE / No. The officers did not exceed the scope of a search warrant when they
HOLDING: confiscated an open laptop computer under a clause authorizing seizure of
any items tending to show dominion and control of the premises
searched.

RATIONALE: The dominion and control clause is standard in search warrants. Evidence
identifying those in control of premises where stolen property is found tends to aid in conviction
of the guilty party. See Warden v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 29, where the court ruled that a
warrant may authorize seizure of evidence establishing a nexus. The open laptop in plain view
presents an obvious source of potentially responsive evidence that officers could not ignore. The
Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be
searched, and the person to things to be seized. Courts have found sufficient particularity in
dominion and control clauses similar to the one in this case. The court concluded the open laptop
computer amounted to an electronic container capable of storing data similar in kind to
documents stored in an ordinary filing cabinet, and thus potentially within the scope of the search
warrant.

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.