A little over a year ago I did a post on the 9th Circuit's decision in the Comprehensive Drug Testing case.
As I explained in those posts, in the CDT case the 9th Circuit not only rules on the admissibility of certain evidence, it also set out a set of procedures police were required to follow in searching for and/or seizing digital evidence. In one of my posts on the case, I noted that I really didn't see how the 9th Circuit (or any court, for that matter) had the Constitutional authority to create such procedures and enforce them on law enforcement. In another, I speculated about the extent to which the procedures were analogous to what the Supreme Court did in the 1960s in the Miranda case, which also, of course, specified procedures police must follow in gathering evidence.
According to Wired, the 9th Circuit issued a new decision on rehearing the case in which it backed off on the prescribed digital evidence procedures. I haven't read the case yet, but I might do a post on it, depending on how much, if at all, it says about the earlier decision to prescribe procedures the current decision to back off of them.
The Wired story has a length to the 58-page opinion, if you'd like to check it out for yourself.