The following excerpt is from United States v. Wood, 20-2713 (2nd Cir. 2021):
We recently rejected a similar challenge in United States v. Vietor, 806 F. App'x 60, 63 (2d Cir. 2020). Evaluating an identically worded condition, we noted that "the search authority granted to probation is not without limitation." Id. "Under the condition's terms, probation 'is authorized to install any application as necessary to surveil all activity on computer(s),' but probation is notified only of 'impermissible/suspicious activity or communications occurring on such computer,' not of all activity, and searches of the computer are authorized only '[a]s triggered by impermissible/suspicious activity.'" Id. Additionally, "[m]onitoring and searches are required to be 'designed to avoid, as much as possible, reading any privileged information or any private material that is not illegal or reasonably likely to lead to illegal material or evidence related to illegal activity.'" Id. Thus, "[a]lthough the condition does not clarify the bounds of ' suspicious' activity, beyond that likely to lead to illegal material, any error is not 'clear or obvious' in the context of our past cases." Id. (quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).
Page 6
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.