Case 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 18 of 21 -18these competing interests, courts must strike the proper balance between ensuring that the government’s ability to effectively and efficiently investigate and prosecute crimes is implemented and assuring respect for individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. See, e.g., United States v. Ganias, No. 12-240-CR, 2014 WL 2722618, *6 (2d Cir. June 17, 2014) (“Because the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been impacted by the advance of technology, the challenge is to adapt traditional Fourth Amendment concepts to the Government’s modern, more sophisticated investigative tools.”); United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1152 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The fact of an increasingly technological world is not lost upon us as we consider the proper balance to strike between protecting an individual’s right to privacy and ensuring that the government is able to prosecute suspected criminals effectively.”). With these considerations in mind, and for the reasons articulated above, the government’s second application for a search warrant will be granted. 10 10 The government also asserts that destroying or returning the evidence received from Apple could either expose the government to accusations that it “destroyed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,” or hinder the government’s “ability to lay a foundation for evidence and establish authenticity under Rule 901 and 1001-1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Govt.’s Challenge at 22. The concerns presented by the government are valid and the procedures for executing the search warrant strike the