« CA1: arbitration confirmed | Main | CA1: deputies sue sheriff under 1983 and win »

April 24, 2008



While this case may show the potential confusion that can result from using a word like "cache" in a computer context, the First Circuit does not appear to have made this error. They appear to be using the word in its traditional sense, as indicating a hoard of material. The evidence which served as probable cause for the warrant in this case was credit card purchases made by the brother of the appellant. There appears to be no web cache issue here at all; the files in question were deliberately named and saved in a manner consistent with how the appellant saved other files.

The comments to this entry are closed.