Okay was reading the complaint which generalizes it. Apparently it was execution of a second warrant unrelated to the drugs (apparently having to do with the disappearance). Unfortunately, like you mentioned, one would need to read the actual warrant to know the scope, but all warrants are required to specify what the scope of it is. The complaint states that several discs of pornographic material were found and the drive (in its box, apparently). While they began to review them and found CP and obviously got further warrants at that point, the honest question would be whether or not their initial warrant actually included digital media in the format it was in. Will be interesting to see what happens in court over this all, like the explanations and such.
What really bothers me is the way things are focusing. Like limiting PoIs. Sure, the guy is not a good guy, but his charges don't exactly equate to disappearing somebody. I pondered before about how many exits the building has, and what actual surveillance covers there. I don't think a guy who has allegedly been running a drug house and in possession of CP would do something to draw this much attention to himself without a decent alibi, especially if he is (apparently) smart enough to make her simply disappear from his apartment without a trace. He straight up admitted she was there, and even admitted to purchasing drugs and doing them (with her). That's a lot to admit when he could have said she left the night before, or didn't come back to his place, or anything like that. It's easy to focus on him because of other charges, but at the same time it's ignoring other possibilities.
Still want to know about that last text she sent and the guy she sent it to, especially since that number got disconnect right after her mom called. That still seems incredibly odd to me.
