We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Laptop/Computer as Indicia?

When drafting a search warrant, it is important to request the authorization to search for indicia of ownership/occupancy/gang activity, etc.  But where does that authorization allow you to look?   

In People v. Rangel (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1310, a man was beaten and possibly stabbed in a park. The crime was thought to be gang related. Rangel was identified as a suspect, and a magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest and a search warrant for the house where he lived.

The search warrant authorized the seizure of stabbing instruments, items containing stains or traces of human blood, and “any and all items which would constitute items commonly known as “Gang Indicia,” such as items and paraphernalia that would tend to demonstrate the subject’s on-going gang affiliation including but not limited to graffiti, notebooks, photographs, sketches, poetry, and red clothing…. Gang related paraphernalia typically retained by gang members can also appear in other forms, including but not limited to, newspapers, artwork, compact disks, audio and videocassette, cameras, undeveloped film, address books, telephone lists, graffiti collections, and magazines.” (Emphasis added.)

Police officers executed the search warrant and found Rangel in his bedroom along with a cell phone that was on his dresser and had been within his reach when they entered the room. The phone was a “smartphone,” i.e., a cellular phone “that has the ability to store data, photographs, [and] videos.” 

Rangel gave a statement and consented to the detective looking at his phone for a number.  After the interview, the detective obtained the cell phone that had been seized from Rangel’s bedroom so he could find the telephone number and track down evidence about Rangel’s alibi. The detective turned on the phone and saw the word “Pesado,” which he recognized as Rangel’s nickname. He clicked on a file that showed a list of text messages and read a text conversation with “Nessa” that appeared to link Rangel to the assault. After reading the text messages, which he had located within a minute of turning on the phone, the detective went to the phone’s contacts list and began looking for names that had been mentioned during the investigation and Rangel’s interview.



The defense argued that evidence of the text messages should be suppressed because the cell phone was outside the scope of the search warrant. The prosecutor responded that the warrant’s reference to telephone lists and gang indicia encompassed the cell phone and authorized its seizure and search.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress. It concluded that the term “telephone lists,” as used in the search warrant, encompassed the seizure of a cell phone because cell phones contain telephone lists.


The court held that a smartphone such as Rangel’s is akin to a personal computer because it has the capacity to store people’s names, telephone numbers and other contact information, as well as music, photographs, artwork, and communications in the form of e-mails and messages – all of which may amount to gang indicia, depending on their content. As such, appellant’s phone was the likely container of many items that are the functional equivalent of those specifically listed in the warrant.



The Rangel Court also looked at a case involving a search warrant authorizing the seizure of items showing a person’s dominion and control over the premises searched has been held to authorize the seizure of a laptop computer even though “computers” were not listed in the warrant as a type of item to be seized. (People v. Balint (2006 139 Cal.App.4th 200; People v. Varghese (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 1084.)

“[L]aptop computers are commonly used for personal correspondence, electronic payment of bills, and storing other information analogous to the examples listed in the warrant that are responsive to the dominion and control principle. Under the functional equivalency test, the fact these documents are in digital form does not bar officers from seizing the evidence…. [A]n open laptop computer is likely to serve as a container of information tending to establish dominion and control of the residence in which it is found.” (Balint, at p. 210.)


Officers should include indicia of occupancy/ownership/gang or other pertinent information-thus allowing a search of computers and cell phones for such evidence.  These investigative tools should be fruitful for you. Be Safe. 

  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau