that Rule 41 authorized the magistrate judge to issue the warrant. The court is bound to interpret Rule 41 as it is written, not to approve any warrants for which the issuing venue merely appears reasonable. Further, the Government contends that Rule 41 has been interpreted flexibly and has been read as permitting searches not expressly prohibited by the rule or by statute. See U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 169, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); U.S. v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc). However, the New York Telephone and Koyomejian cases both involved a kind of search not addressed one way or the other by the text of Rule 41 (the use of a pen register to collect telephone numbers when the definition of “property” did not yet include information 0) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if not a constitutional
holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights holding that arrest in backyard violated fourth amendment holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights