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.

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 classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Your class 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
  • Your instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • 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 that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly 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 class 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
  • ...Provides 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
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda