California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Oziel v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.3d 1284, 273 Cal.Rptr. 196 (Cal. App. 1990):
Although the return to the search warrant is not part of our record, and we do not know whether the videotapes are listed thereon, we would still reach the same conclusion because the videotapes were items taken under color of a warrant. The images thereon were "seized" while a search warrant was being executed and the warrant supplied the only authority for their seizure. (See Hibbard v. City of Anaheim (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 270, 275, fn. 6, 208 Cal.Rptr. 733; also see People v. Matteo (Sup.1985) 127 Misc.2d 112, 485 N.Y.S.2d 446, 447-448 [court ordered suppressed 10 photographs of interior of defendant's apartment taken by police executing search warrant for plastic container, not found therein; photographing was a seizure of intangible visual images of property as to which defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and nothing in the affidavit to the warrant connected the property depicted in the photographs with the commission of a crime].)
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.