United States v. David Bishop Laist, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25317

FBI investigated the online alias Tar Heel for possession and distribution of child pornography, tracing it to David Laist at the University of Georgia.
On March 4, 2009, agents interviewed Laist at his apartment and obtained signed consent forms to search his computer and five external hard drives.
Laist revoked consent on March 12, 2009, after which the FBI continued to hold the items based on probable cause and began preparing a search-warrant affidavit.
Warrant application and affidavit were submitted to a magistrate judge on April 7, 2009, with the judge delayed about six days before issuing the warrant on April 13, 2009.
The FBI later found thousands of images and videos depicting child pornography on the computer and external drives, leading to Laist’s conviction and suppression motion.
Laist challenged the 23–25 day seizure as an unreasonable Fourth Amendment delay, arguing Mitchell controls and requires suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 25-day delay was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Laist argues delay was unreasonable and warrants suppression.	Laist’s position is that delay is excessive given lack of diligence.	Delay was not unreasonable under totality of circumstances.
Whether the six-day magistrate delay should be attributed to the government	The delay should be counted against government as part of the seizure.	The magistrate’s delay is not imputable to the government for exclusionary purposes.	Six-day delay not attributed to government for exclusionary purposes.
Whether Mitchell controls and creates a per se rule for computer cases	Mitchell dictates suppression due to delay and lack of diligence.	Mitchell is distinguishable and does not set a per se rule.	Mitchell distinguished; no per se rule; case-by-case analysis governs.
What factors govern the reasonableness of the seizure	Factors should favor suppression due to significant possessory interests.	Totality of circumstances supports reasonableness given diligence and complexity.	Reasonableness upheld based on totality of circumstances.

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (seizure permissible with probable cause prior to warrant when no privacy expectation)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (U.S. 2001) (temporary warrantless seizure reasonable if warrant pursued promptly)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (balancing intrusion against governmental interests in determining reasonableness)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception; identity of responsible party matters for deterrence)
United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009) (case-by-case totality-of-circumstances test for computer-seizure delays; notable for distinguishing from Mitchell)
United States v. Burgard, 675 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussion of reasonableness factors in delay assessments)