Case 2:16-mj-01061-TJR Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 22 of 29 data on computer was not a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment because it did not interfere with the defendant's possessory interest in the data). 14 For these reasons, the execution of the two Google search warrants, at issue here, will not result in a "seizure" in a foreign country. 15 The court's Fourth Amendment analysis does not end there, however, for the court also must examine the location of the searches in the instant cases. As noted supra, 14 Rule 41(e)(2)(B), which deals with a warrant seeking electronically stored information, provides: A warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Unless otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant. The time for executing the warrant in Rule 41(e)(2)(A) and (f)(l)(A) refers to the seizure or on-site copying of the media or information, and not to any later off-site copying or review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B). One commentator posits that the express language of Rule 41 reinforces the view that copying information does not constitute a seizure. See Taticchi, supra, at 489. By joining "copying" and "seizure" with the conjunction "or" the rule implies "that the two concepts do not overlap, i.e., that copying is not a seizure." Id. Rule 41(f) also refers to seizures and copies as alternative options. Id. 15 This court's conclusion that a "seizure" would not occur when Google accesses the undisclosed electronic data required by the two warrants also is supported by Judge Raggi's dissenting opinion from the denial of rehearing en bane. This opinion was joined by the three other dissenting judges of the Second Circuit. Judge Raggi found: even if privacy is the focus of§§ 2702 and 2703, the territorial event that is the focus of that privacy interest is the service provider's disclosure of the subscriber communications to a third party - whether in violation of§ 2702(a) or as authorized by warrant under§ 2703(a). It is where that disclosure occurs that determines whether these statutory provisions are being applied domestically or extraterritori ally. 2017 WL 362765, at* 16. Judge Raggi also rejected the majority panel's ruling that Microsoft's accessing of the emails in Ireland constituted a "seizure." Judge Raggi reasoned that "it is simply wrong to characterize Microsoft's actions in retrieving customer electronic data in Ireland as '"Microsoft's execution of the warrant,"' much less as a seizure by Microsoft." Id. at *15 (citing Carney, J., Op. at 3; Microsoft, 829 F.3d at 220). 22