Back when you and I went to school, we learned about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We learned about the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Fifth, Sixth and 14th amendments assuring due process, fair trials and guaranteed constitutional rights for everyone. We also learned, in our system, prosecutors must prove to a jury that people are guilty — not the other way around.
To my knowledge, these amendments haven’t been repealed, nor has the doctrine “innocent until proven guilty” been revoked.
But it seems District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen has taken it upon himself to repeal the Bill of Rights. Instead of the Constitution, Stalinist Russia is Rosen’s legal lighthouse.
In the case of Anthony Becker, Rosen kept Becker’s devices, his spouse’s electronic devices, and even Becker’s mother’s computer, long after Becker was tried, convicted and served his sentence. For three years.
When Becker went to court to get these devices back, Rosen told the judge he, Rosen, intended to keep them just in case new technology cracked a locked iPhone. Or Becker got divorced and then they could compel his ex-spouse to testify.
Rosen told the Becker family they could have their devices back if they gave him their passwords — just so he could check and make sure there was no evidence of any crime. Sounds more like a deal Tony Soprano would offer if he were DA.
Think about this for a minute. Rosen wants to keep the property of people who have been charged with no crime, just in case new technology or a divorce will aid his fishing expeditions.
By that logic, Rosen can seize anybody’s property to fish for criminal evidence. Why stop at electronics? Why not search everybody’s house for unpaid parking tickets? Maybe Rosen can just arrest everybody, drag us into court and make us prove we haven’t committed any crimes.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to know American law doesn’t allow prosecutors to seize and keep property on the grounds that perhaps in the future you can go on fishing expeditions.
Folks, this is a travesty. What’s even more of a travesty is that a judge agrees with Rosen.
Rosen is DA in a county with two million people, the third-largest city in California, and which is hosting the world’s two largest sporting events in the next nine months. Instead of doing his job, protecting the people of Santa Clara County, he’s wasting public resources playing “Guess That Password.”
We can only speculate on the motive for Rosen’s obsession with Becker.
Maybe he aimed to catch a big fish and ride it into the California Attorney General’s office. Instead, he caught a minnow in the small pond of Santa Clara, whose mayor, Lisa Gillmor — part of Rosen’s mutual admiration society — wasted $6 million fighting the California Voting Rights Act. Hardly a record to take down Rob Bonta.
We can speculate about Rosen’s motives. What isn’t speculation is that his personal political plots are trumping his duty to the Constitution.
Previous Milestones:
Milestones – Gillmor vs. the Wrong Goliath – Opinion
Milestones – Gillmor’s Assured Loss – Opinion
Milestones – A Bad Penny – Opinion
Jeff Rosen is not a good person. He is sex trafficking my children.
..
Please read this…
..
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/272/404/301/district-attorney-jeffrey-rosen-please-stop-sex-trafficking-my-kids/
Just watch Mr. Rosen ignore me as I plead with him to protect my children. He is seated second from left.
…
https://youtu.be/7sy-bBU4KQs?t=893
Is it too much to ask that a District Attorney should always protect children from being molested and parents from being assaulted? Am I out of line to request this?
How would you feel if you poured out your heart begging for your kids to just get a basic screening and for the person in charge of protecting the community to just do ABOSULTELY NOTHING?
I implore anyone in this community to read this document and see the great bodily harm that Jeff Rosen allowed and incentivized to occur to me. He is totally out of control. This could happen to anyone.
…
https://www.scribd.com/document/628344196/Valerie-Runyan-Houghton-Therapist-Attorney-Divorce
Please also read the comments section of this article. D.A. Rosen has a long, long history of failing crime victims.
….
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/rosens-lawless-war-against-the-death-penalty-part-ii/
Rosen really is like Tony Soprano. He abuses his power and colludes with bad actors to spread misery. I don’t understand why he keeps getting re-elected.
DA Jeff Rosen has long ignored the corruption and crimes of those supporting his political agenda. He’s just as bad as Laurie Smith, ex-Sheriff, was. Voters in this County aren’t interested in eradicating corruption from the community as long as crimes happen to someone else.
1. Statutory Rights Under California Law
Penal Code § 1538.5 – Motion for Return of Property / Suppression
*Under California Penal Code § 1538.5, a defendant may move for the return of property (or suppression) seized in a search or seizure.
*The statute allows the defendant to argue that the seizure was unreasonable (without a warrant, or with a warrant but deficient, or that the property was misdescribed).
*This remedy is often used before conviction, but can continue after, depending on the case and what has been offered as evidence.
Thus, Becker (as a defendant) has a direct mechanism under state law to request return of seized devices that were not used as evidence or that were never introduced at trial.
Penal Code § 1417.5 – Return of Exhibits After Trial
*California law also has a provision, § 1417.5, specifically for property that was used as an exhibit at trial. Once the criminal proceedings conclude (after conviction or acquittal), the person may petition for the return of those items.
*Under § 1417.5, the court clerk must notify parties that exhibits are available for release and allow a motion within a certain time window (usually 15 days).
*However, that statute typically covers items that were physically introduced as trial exhibits. If a device or property was never entered into evidence, § 1417.5 may not apply directly.
So for the devices not used in trial (i.e. not exhibits), § 1417.5 is probably not sufficient standing alone — Becker’s main route is § 1538.5 (and perhaps related equitable remedies).
Motion / Writ of Mandamus / Special Proceeding (for non-defendants or non-charged persons)
*For persons not charged or convicted (like Cardona, who was never charged), the typical route is not within a criminal case but via a special proceeding or writ of mandate to compel return of property.
*Case law (e.g. People v. Superior Court (Aquino)) has held that when no criminal charges are filed, a return motion can proceed as a special proceeding against the government entity holding the property.
*A writ of mandamus is another remedy: if the prosecution or DA refuses to act, a court can be asked to compel it to return property.
Thus, Cardona could argue for return via writ or special proceeding, asserting no legal basis for indefinite retention.
2. Constitutional Protections & Due Process
Beyond statutory rights, Becker and Cardona may have constitutional protections, particularly under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (U.S. Constitution), and possibly under state constitutional analogues.
Fourth Amendment & Seizure Doctrine
*The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If devices were seized under a deficient warrant, or without probable cause, there is a constitutional claim.
But here, the devices were presumably seized under a legitimate warrant tied to the investigation of Becker. The key question is whether continued retention, especially beyond trial, is reasonable.
Due Process / “Return of Property” and Possessory Interest
*Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the government cannot indefinitely deprive someone of their property without fair procedures.
*Courts have recognized that continued retention of non-evidentiary property may implicate due process. If a device contains private, non-relevant personal or business data, indefinite seizure creates hardship (e.g., loss of employment opportunities, financial records, family documents).
*In Arizona v. Youngblood (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors are not required to preserve all evidence, unless a defendant can show bad faith by the state.
*In California v. Trombetta (1984), the Court held that due process requires preservation of evidence only when it possesses “exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was lost or destroyed” and is “material” to the defendant’s case.
*The doctrine of Trombetta / Youngblood means that for a due process violation to lie, Becker would have to show that:
1. The evidence was potentially exculpatory or useful;
2. The state acted in bad faith in failing to preserve or return it; and
3. The result of the trial might have been different.
In Becker’s situation, since the DA has extracted data, one might argue the physical devices no longer have “material exculpatory value” — but that depends heavily on whether unique content remains only on the devices or whether forensic access is incomplete.
Equal Protection / Selective Treatment (for Cardona’s case?)
Because Cardona was never charged, requiring him to surrender passwords as a condition for return might be challenged as violating equal protection or being an unreasonable burden on property rights.
If the DA applies special rules to Cardona’s devices that differ from others, that could raise fairness issues.
3. Legal & Constitutional Arguments Against the DA / Judge Behavior
Here are potential arguments highlighting wrongdoings or overreach by the DA’s office or the judge’s conditional retention scheme:
a. Undue Delay / Lack of Timely Return Justification
*The devices have been held for nearly three years. The DA claims technological advancement as justification for keeping them indefinitely — but that is speculative.
*Courts often require the state to articulate specific justification to continue holding property, not indefinite open-ended retention.
b. Improper Conditional Return Requirement (Password Surrender)
*Judge Alcala’s order that Becker and Cardona must surrender passwords to retrieve their devices imposes a self-incrimination / coercion risk.
*This may be challenged as overbroad, because Cardona has no charges against him — requiring surrender of passwords may violate his privacy and property rights absent showing of necessity or court order.
*It’s questionable whether the state can hold devices hostage by forcing disclosure of encrypted data as a condition for retrieval when the person is not convicted.
c. Failure to Distinguish Evidentiary vs. Non-Evidentiary Items
*Montoya argues that none of the devices (except extracted data) were physically introduced at trial. The DA’s continuing retention of the raw devices, rather than just copies or extracted data, appears excessive.
*The state may not lawfully retain items that are not required for further proceedings, especially once direct appeals begin.
d. Due Process / Hardship & Disproportionate Burden
*Becker claims loss of ability to obtain work in his field, loss of personal documents, financial records, etc. Those are clear burdens.
*The state must weigh the harm to Becker & Cardona against the risk of return (e.g., evidence destruction, loss) and must show that continued retention is needed. In absence, due process is breached.
e. Speculative Justification of New Evidence
*The DA’s justification that new evidence might emerge via advancing technology is speculative and unbounded. That reasoning could be used to indefinitely hold any device, undermining the return remedy.
*That argument shifts the burden improperly to the defense to disprove unknown future possibilities.
f. Lack of Accountability / Transparency in Device Management
*The DA admits they have not attempted to process some of Cardona’s phones. That raises questions about whether the retention is bona fide investigation or arbitrary withholding.
*No timeline or plan was provided for when devices would be returned, which is inconsistent with principles of due process and reasoned decision-making.
g. Seizure of Property Outside Scope of Warrant
* The Dell laptop belonging to Becker’s mother, which was “outside the scope of the search warrant,” should not have been held — that is potentially unlawful seizure and retention.
5. Suggested Legal Strategy / Motion Outline
Here’s how a well-structured motion or appellate brief might proceed:
a. Statement of Facts — detail seizure date, items, lack of presentation as exhibits, passage of time, harm to Becker & Cardona, DA’s responses.
b. Statutory Basis — request return under § 1538.5 (for Becker) and mandamus or special proceeding (for Cardona).
c. Separation of Evidence vs Non-Evidence — emphasize that extracted data is accessible to DA; devices themselves not necessary except for extraordinary reasons.
d. Due Process / Constitutional Claim — argue retention violates property and procedural due process; burden on DA to justify continued retention.
e. Trombetta / Youngblood principles — if devices contained exculpatory or unique private data not extractable, and DA acted in bad faith or with negligence, that’s a constitutional violation.
f. Challenge Password Conditionality — argue that requiring password surrender is overbroad, not authorized, or even unconstitutional, especially for Cardona.
g. Request Court Order with Timeline — demand the court set specific deadlines for review, return, or hearing; request partial return of non-sensitive files; set motion for immediate release of non-evidentiary property.
h. Request Sanctions or Reprimand — for unreasonable delay or holding beyond necessity.
i. In the Alternative, Writ Relief — if court refuses motion, petition higher court via writ mandamus to compel lower court to act.
5. Conclusion
Becker and Cardona have both statutory and constitutional rights to challenge the retention and seek return of their devices. The DA’s arguments—predicated on speculative future uses of technology, conditional password surrender, and indefinite retention—risk violating due process, property rights, and principles of limited government. The justice system requires clearer justifications, transparent timelines, and non-coercive conditions for return. The devices should be returned unless the DA can positively demonstrate necessity, relevance, and lawful justification for further retention under constitutional standards.
Thank you for citing sources to support your conclusion.
Only approved rights are approved.
Miles couldn’t have said it any better with a comparison to Tony Soprano. It is very concerning to learn that this is constantly the efforts of the District Attorney’s office. District Attorney’s Rosen and Malinsky must be really nervous about their case to worry about giving property back as it is not a murder case but a political one. Are they worried what is on Becker’s devices? Right now District Attorney Rosen is on the fancy Measure A mailers endorsing it and talking about if voters do not vote for Measure A that there could be cuts to public safety and his office. Rosen, prosecutors, and public safety are trying to scare voters while using badges and elected office titles to clearly abuse their power. Because one has to ask, how much did this investigation into the 5 Santa Clara City Council members cost. When Chief Nikolai wrote a letter (https://www.svvoice.com/police-chief-nikolai-asks-district-attorney-to-investigate/) to Jeff Rosen to investigate those Councilmembers and when fake non-profit Stand Up for Santa Clara started petitions to send to Rosen to investigate those same councilmembers, how much did all this cost the taxpayers? How much cost and time looking into those 5 Councilmembers and the the trial of Anthony Becker? How much did this political trial and witch hunt cost the taxpayers of the county of Santa Clara overall? How much did it cost Lisa Gillmor to stay out of trouble after she searched consequences for crimes of perjury and leaking. There has to be some accounting of this right? https://www.svvoice.com/grand-jury-transcript-shows-district-attorneys-office-selective-in-its-pursuit-of-justice/
Following the Becker trial, Jeff Rosen was confronted and states that he refuses to look into who leaked the grand jury report to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Absent more information, we charged the person and convicted the person who committed the crime–We extensively investigated it”. What kind of District Attorney leaves stones unturned? This is the same District Attorney’s office that wants more money from taxpayers to investigate crimes and corruption, yet he refuses to exhaust all efforts of those who committed the crime of leaking to the San Francisco Chronicle. It is obvious he won’t pursue Gillmor and Co because they are his allies. https://www.svvoice.com/becker-found-guilty-of-perjury-willful-violation-of-duty/ . This is why Santa Clara County needs a new District Attorney, one that does not do political favors and violates people’s due process and constitutional rights. One that does not terminate employees in his office because of politics. Two Santa Clara Councilmembers have endorsed Daniel Chung for District Attorney and Suds Jain’s quote is surely targeted at the politicalness of Rosen’s office https://www.chungforchange.com/endorsements.
When Miles mentions the strong influence of a mafia like District Attorney, Santa Clara is a very strong influence of the Italian, Portuguese and Irish. If you look at all the players, they are always these descendant last names. Santa Clara’s roots which Mayor Gillmor expresses often are tied to original families and dynasties. This is what makes her and others think they own the city. Gillmor is an Irish derived last name where a lot of Irish influence comes from the St. Justin’s Church which is always a key player. This church has been around for ages back to the era of when the church was first founded in a barn. Key figures are involved with St. Justin’s like former Councilmember Teresa O’Neill and disgraced former City Attorney Brian Doyle. The church is also a home to former 2022 civil grand juror Shirley Modric, Teresa’s neighbor. https://www.svvoice.com/unclear-connections-grand-jurors-under-fire-for-potential-conflicts-of-interest/ . You also have judge of the Grand Jury Beth McGowan, current City Clerk and Former Civil Grand Juror Bob O’Keefe all Irish ties last names. Lots of influence, so it must be the luck of the Irish? You have the Italian names, Biagini’s, Mezzetti’s (Gillmor’s lawyer), Marsalli, and the Portuguese families, Souzas, Silva, Reberio, Azevedo. https://www.svvoice.com/santa-claras-portuguese-roots-past-and-present/ . Before anyone has a panic attack, no I am not calling these names mafia. However, it is a lot like the book The Gangs of New York which described Irish and Italian gangs that ran the 5 points, Tammany Hall that was corrupt as ever and was the birth to modern mafias. Santa Clara has its own gang/mafia types and its own Tammany Hall at 1500 Warburton Ave with Boss Gillmor in full control. It clearly sounds like something of fiction that a Mayor has this many ties to district attorneys, grand juries, judges, developers. Like something out of a mafia flick or episode of The Sopranos.
Miles, keep pulling back the curtain and unmasking these corrupt leaders.