BOISE, Idaho — "The government cannot seize the haystack to look for a needle," defense attorneys for Bryan Kohberger argued Friday, as they continued challenging the scope and validity of search warrants used in the investigation before his arrest.
Kohberger faces first-degree murder charges, accused of fatally stabbing four University of Idaho students in November of 2022.
Moscow Police Department Detective Brett Payne, the lead investigator in the case, testified Friday, detailing the use of multiple warrants, including those for AT&T and Apple records, which were pivotal in obtaining digital data. He stated that all records were obtained with proper warrants and explained investigators' reliance on specialists to analyze Apple data.
“All of these warrants were not general warrants,” the state argued. “They were all sufficiently particular… They were specific to each one of them, listed that they were specific to the type of crime, the location, and all but one of them had temporal limitations.”
The defense, however, maintained that several warrants were overly broad and lacked sufficient particularity, claiming they violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights.
“A search warrant must be particular enough so that, as to what is taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant,” defense attorneys argued.
Detective Lawrence Mowery, who handled the extraction of digital data, was also called to the stand. The defense questioned the process used to copy Kohberger's phone data to a USB drive, alleging it was done before obtaining a warrant. Mowery disputed this claim.
The defense also raised concerns about what they referred to as "wiggle words" in the state's expert disclosures, arguing the lack of specificity could jeopardize Kohberger's right to a fair trial.
“We have a right to confront the evidence that’s brought against us,” the defense said.
The judge weighed in, emphasizing the importance of both sides fully disclosing expert testimony.
“It is, for the case, one of the most important things you can do … to understand what the person is going to testify to and give a disclosure of what those opinions are,” the judge said.
The hearing is ongoing, as the court reviews the defense’s challenges to the evidence.
