The following excerpt is from United States v. Hasbajrami, Docket No. 15-2684-L, Docket No. 17-2669-CON (2nd Cir. 2019):
The second Fourth Amendment principle implicated by incidental collection speaks directly to that concern. The Fourth Amendment generally is not violated when law enforcement officers, having lawfully undertaken electronic surveillance, whether under the authority of a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, discover and seize either evidence of criminal activity that they would not have had probable cause to search for in the first place, or the relevant conversations of an individual they did not anticipate or name in a warrant application. See, e.g., United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 427 & n.15 (1977) (noting, as to domestic wiretaps, "[i]t is not a constitutional requirement that all those likely to be overheard engaging in incriminating conversations be named."); United States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466, 472 (2d Cir. 1985) ("More particularly, the mere fact that Title III allows interception of
Page 53
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.