Order on Motion to Suppress in Playpen Case

Case 1:15-cr-10271-WGY Document 69 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 39

UNI TED STATES DI DI STRI STRI CT COURT DI STRI CT OF OF MASSACH ASSACHUSETTS SETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNI TED STATES STATES OF AMERI ERI CA,

v. ALEX LEX LEVI LEVI N, Def endant .

CRI MI NAL ACTI ON NO NO. 1515- 1027 102711- WGY

YOUNG, D. J .

Apr i l 20, 20, 2016 2016 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I.

INTRODUCTION

Al ex Le Levi n i s cha char ged wi t h possessi on of chi chi l d por nogr aphy. Compl . 1, ECF ECF No. 1.

The The gover over nment ent obt obt ai ned evi evi dence ence of

Lev Levi n’ s al l eged cri me i n t hr ee st eps.

Fi r st , i t sei sei zed zed con cont r ol

of a webs i t e t hat di s t r i but ed t he i l l i c i t mat er i al at i s s ue ue ( “Websi t e A”) .

Next , i t obt ai ned a ser ser i es of of sea sear ch war r ant s

t hat al l owed t he go gover ver nment t o i dent i f y i ndi vi dual user s wh who wer e access access i ng cont cont ent ent on Websi ebsi t e A.

One of t hese war r ant ant s

i nvol vol ved ved t he de depl oyment of a Ne Net wor k I nvest vest i gat i ve Techn chni que ( t he “NI “NI T War r ant ”) .

Fi nal l y, t he gover ver nment sear sear che ched 1 t he

com comput er s of of cer cer t ai n of t hese i ndi vi dual s, i ncl udi ng Lev Levi n.

1

The The gove goverr nment ent has has wai ved any any ar gum gument ent t hat hat i t s i nvest vest i gat i ve con conduct her e di d not amount t o a sear sear ch by f ai l i ng t o r ai se t hi s ar ar gument ent i n i t s memor and andum. The The Cour our t t her ef or e ass umes t hat Levi Levi n ha had a r easona sonabl e exp expe ect at i on of of pr i vacy vacy as as t o [1]


Levi n has has moved oved t o supp suppr ess t he evi evi dence ence obt obt ai ned as a r esul sul t of t he i ssua ssuance of t he NI T War r ant , ar gui ng t hat t he NI NI T War r ant i s vo voi d f or want of j ur i sdi sdi ct i on under t he Fe Fed der al Magi st r at es Act Act , 28 U. S. C. § 63 636( a) , and addi t i onal l y t hat i t vi ol at ed Fe Fed der al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e 41( b) .

Def . ’ s Mot .

Suppr ess Evi Evi dence ( “De “Def . ’ s Mot . ”) 5- 6, ECF No. 44.

The

gover over nment ent cont cont end ends t hat t he NI T War r ant ant was val val i d and and t hat , i n any any eve even nt , supp suppr essi on i s not not an app appr opr opr i at e r emedy edy on on t hese f act s.

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. Def . ’ s Mot . Suppr ess ( “Go “Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. ”) 1, 1,

ECF ECF No. No. 60. II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Thi Thi s cas e i nvol nvol ves a f ar - r eachi ng and and hi ghl ghl y publ publ i ci z ed i nvest vest i gat i on con conduct ed by t he Fe Fed der al Bur eau of I nvest vest i gat i on i n ear l y 20 2015 t o pol i ce chi chi l d por nogr aphy.

2

The i nvest i gat i on

f ocused ocused on Websi ebsi t e A, whi ch was accessi accessi bl e t o user s onl onl y t hr oug ough

t he i nf or mat i on obt ai ned t hr ough t he exe execu cutt i on of t he va var i ous war r ant s. 2

For For cov cover age of of t hi s i nvest i gat i on, see see, f or exampl e, El l en Nak akash ashii ma, Thi Thi s i s How t he Gover over nment ent i s Cat chi chi ng Peo Peop pl e Who Use Use Ch Chi l d Por Por n Si t es, Wash. Post Post , J an 21, 2016, ht t ps: / / www. washi shi ngt onpost . com com/ wor l d/ nat i onal - secu secur i t y/ how- t hegover ver nment - i s- usi ng- mal war e- t o- ensna snar e- chi chi l d- por nuser s/ 2016/ 01/ 21/ f b8ab5 ab5f 8- bec0ec0- 11e5e5- 83d442e3b e3bceea9 ceea902_ st or y. ht ml ; Mar y- Ann Russ on, on, FBI FBI Cr ack Tor Tor and and Cat ch 1, 500 Vi si t or s t o Bi ggest Chi l d Por Por nogr aphy Websi t e on t he Dar k Web, I nt ’ l Bus. Ti mes, J an. 6, 2016, ht t p: / / www. i bt i mes. co. co. uk/ f bi - crack crack-- t or - cat cat chch- 1500- vi si t or sbi ggest - chi chi l d- por nogr aphy- websi t e- dar k- web- 1536417. [2]


t he “To “Tor ” net net wor k - - sof t war e de desi gned t o pr pr eser ve user s’ anon anonym ymi t y by by maski ng t hei r I P ad addr esses.

3

See Def . ’ s Mot . , Ex. Ex.

3, Af f . Supp. Appl i cat cat i on Sear ch War r ant ( “Af “Af f . Supp. NI T War r ant ”) 10- 12, ECF No No. 44- 3. As an an i ni t i al s t ep i n t hei r i nves t i gat i on, FBI agent s sei zed zed con cont r ol of Websi t e A i n Fe Feb br uar y 2015.

See i d. at 21- 23.

Rat her t han i mmedi at el y shu shut t i ng i t down, agent s opt opt ed t o r un t he si t e out of a gover nment f aci l i t y i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a f or t wo weeks i n or der t o i dent i f y - - and ul t i mat el y, t o pr osecut secut e - – user s of Websi t e A.

3

See i d. at 23 23.

To do t hi s

“Tor “Tor , ” whi ch st ands f or “The “The Oni on Rout er , ” i s “ t he mai n br owser peopl e use t o access” ccess” t he “Da “Dar kne knet ” - - “a spe speci f i c pa par t of t h[ e] hi dden Web wher e you you can oper oper at e i n t ot al anon anonym ymi t y. ” Goi ng Dar k: The I nt er net Behi nd t he I nt er net , Nat ’ l Pub. Radi o, May 25 25, 2014, ht t p: / / www. npr . or g/ sect sect i ons/ al l t echco chcon nsi der ed/ 2014/ 05/ 25/ 315821415/ goi ng- dar k- t he- i nt er net - behi nd- t hei nt er net . Tor i t sel sel f i s l awf ul and has var i ous l egi t i mat e uses. ses. See i d. I ndeed, i t was de devel vel oped by t he Uni t ed St at es Na Navy, vy, whi ch con cont i nues t o use use i t “as a mea ean ns of communi cat i ng wi t h spi es and and i nf or mant s[ . ] ” J ohn Lan Lanche chest er , When Bi t coi coi n Gr ows Up, 28 Lon London R. Books No. No. 8, ht t p: / / www. l r b. co. co. uk/ v38 v38/ n08/ j ohnl anche chest er / when- bi t coi coi n- gr ows- up. Tor has, however ver , pr pr oduced di f f i c ul ul t i es f or l aw enf or c em ement of f i c i al s , “ es es pe pec i al l y t hos e pur sui sui ng chi chi l d por nogr aphy, I nt er net f r aud and bl ack mar ke kett s, ” si nce i t al l ows cr cr i mi nal s t o evade det ect i on. Mar t i n Kast e, When a Dar k Web Vol unt ee eerr Get s Rai Rai ded by t he Pol Pol i ce, Nat ’ l Pub Pub. Radi o, Apr i l 4, 2016, ht t p: / / www. npr . or g/ sect sect i ons/ al l t echco chcon nsi de r ed/ 2016/ 04/ 04/ 4729 92 92023/ when- a- dar k- web- vol vol unt eer - get s- r ai dedby- t he- pol i ce; ce; see see al so Lan Lanche chest er , sup supr a ( descr i bi ng Tor as “t he si ngl e most ef f ect i ve web t ool f or t er r or i st s, cri mi nal s and and pae aed dos” and and not i ng t hat i t “gi ves ves anon anonym ymi t y an and geo eog gr aph aphi cal unl oc at at abi l i t y t o al l i t s us us er er s ” ) . At t he s am ame t i me, i t s l egal user s have have r ai sed con concer cer ns abo about t he pr i vacy vacy i mpl i cat cat i ons of gover over nment ent “s t i ng” op oper at i ons ons on on t he Tor Tor net net wor k. See Kast e, sup supr a. [3]


r equi r ed t he depl oyment of cer cer t ai n i nvest i gat i ve t ool s.

See i d.

at 23- 24. To t hat hat end, end, t he gover gover nment ent s ough oughtt and obt obt ai ned ned a s er i es of war r ant s.

Fi r st , on Fe Feb br uar y 20, 2015, t he gover ver nment pr ocur cur ed

an or der pur s ua uant t o Ti t l e I I I f r om a di s t r i c t j udge i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a per mi t t i ng t he gover nment t o i nt er cept cept com communi cat cat i ons be bet ween Websi t e A user s. Ex. 2 ( “Ti “Ti t l e I I I War r ant ”) , ECF No. 44- 2.

Def . ’ s Mot . ,

Secon cond, al so on t hat

dat e, t he go gover ver nment obt ai ned a war r ant f r om a magi st r at e j udge i n t he Ea East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a t o i mpl ement a Net wor k I nvest vest i gat i ve Techn chni que ( “NI “NI T”) t hat woul d al l ow t he gover ver nment cove coverr t l y t o t r ansmi t com comput er cod code t o Websi t e A user s. 4 NI NI T War r ant ant , ECF ECF No. 44- 3.

Thi Thi s comput er cod c ode e t hen gener ener at ed a

communi cat i on f r om t hose user s’ comput er s t o t he gover over nment ent oper at ed ser ser ver con cont ai ni ng var i ous i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng t hose user ser s’ I P ad addr esses. sses.

5

See Af f . Supp. NI T War r ant

24- 26.

4

For For a di scussi on of t he gover ver nment ’ s r ecen cent use of of t hese t ypes ypes of war r ant ant s, see Br Br i an L. Owsl ey, ey, Bewar e o off Gover over nment ent Agent s Bear i ng Tr Tr oj an Hor ses, 48 Akr Akr on L. L. Rev. 315 ( 2015) . 5

Th The af f i davi t t he gover ver nment sub submi t t ed i n sup suppor t of i t s appl i cat cat i on f or t he NI T War r ant descr i bes t hi s pr pr ocess: cess: I n t he nor mal cou cour se of of oper at i on, websi ebsi t es send send con cont ent t o vi si t or s. A user ’ s com comput er do downl oads t hat cont cont ent and uses i t t o di di spl ay web page ages on t he user user ’ s comput er . Under t he NI T aut hor i zed by t hi s war r ant , [4]


Thr Thr ough ough t he use of t he NI T, gover gover nment agen agentt s det det er mi ned t hat a Websi ebsi t e A user cal l ed “Manak anakar ar al upa” had had access access ed sever sever al i mages ages of chi chi l d por nogr ogr aph aphy i n ea earr l y Mar ch 20 2015, and and t hey t r aced aced t he I P ad addr ess of t hat user t o Le Levi n’ s hom home ad addr ess i n Nor wood, Massach ssachu uset set t s.

Def . ’ s Mot . , Ex. 1 ( “Re “Resi dent i al War r ant ”) , Af f .

Supp. Appl i cat cat i on f or Sear ch War r ant ( “Af “Af f . Supp. Resi dent i al

[ Websi t e A] , whi ch wi l l be l ocat cat ed . . . i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, woul d augment t hat con cont ent wi t h addi t i onal com comput er i nst r uct i ons. When a user ’ s comput er success success f ul l y do downl oads t hose i ns t r uc t i ons f r om [ Webs i t e A] . . . t he i ns t r uc t i ons , whi ch compr i se t he NI NI T, ar e desi desi gned t o cau cause t he user ser ’ s ‘ act i vat i ng’ com comput er t o t r ansmi t cer cer t ai n i nf or mat i on t o a comput er cont cont r ol l ed by or or know known t o t he gover gover nment ent . Af f . Supp. NI T War r ant 24. The par t i cul cul ar i nf or mat i on sei sei zed zed pur suan suant t o t he NI T War r ant ant i ncl uded: 1. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ com comput er ’ s act act ual I P addr ess, and t he dat e and and t i me t hat t he NI T det er mi nes what t hat I P addr ess i s; 2. a uni que i dent i f i er gener at ed by t he NI T ( e. g. , a ser ser i es of of number s, l et t er s, and/ or spe speci al cha char act er s) t o di s t i ngui s h dat a f r om t hat of ot her ‘ ac t i vat i ng’ com comput er s, t hat wi l l be sent sent wi t h and col col l ect ed by t he NI T; 3. t he t ype ype of oper at i ng syst em r unni ng on t he com comput er , i ncl udi ng t ype ( e. g. , Wi ndows) , ver si on ( e. g. , Wi ndows 7) 7) , and ar chi chi t ect ur e ( e. g. , x 86) ; 4. i nf or mat i on abou aboutt whet her t he NI T has has al al r ea ead dy bee been n del i ver ed t o t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ com comput er ; 5. t he ‘ act i vat vat i ng’ com comput er ’ s Ho Host Name; 6. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ com comput er ’ s act act i ve op oper at i ng syst syst em user us er name; and 7. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ com comput er ’ s medi a acce access ss cont cont r ol ( ‘ MAC’ ) add addr ess[ . ] NI T War r ant , At t ach. ch. B ( I nf or mat i on t o be Se Sei zed zed) . [5]


War r ant ant ”) 11- 12, ECF ECF No. 44- 1.

On August 11, 2015, l aw

enf or cem cement of f i ci al s ob obt ai ned a t hi r d and f i nal war r ant ( t he “Re “Resi dent i al War r ant ”) f r om Magi st r at e J udge Bowl er i n t hi s Di st r i ct t o sea sear ch Lev Levi n’ s ho home.

See Resi dent i al War r ant .

Agent ent s execu executt ed t he Resi Resi dent ent i al War r ant ant on August 12, 2015, and and i n t hei r sea sear ch of Lev Levi n’ s com comput er , i dent i f i ed ei ght medi a f i l es al l egedl y con cont ai ni ng chi chi l d por nogr aphy.

See Compl . , Ex.

2, Af f . Supp. Appl i cat cat i on Cr i mi nal Compl . ¶ 7, ECF No No. 1- 2. Levi Levi n was sub subsequ sequent ent l y i ndi ct ed on one one coun count of possess i on of chi chi l d por nogr aphy, 18 U. S. C. § 22 2252A( a) ( 5) ( B) . ECF No. 8.

I ndi ct ment ,

He has si nce moved oved t o supp suppr ess al l evi evi dence ence sei zed

pur suan suant t o t he NI NI T War r ant ant and t he Re Resi dent ent i al War r ant . 6 Def . ’ s Mot .

Af t er hol di ng a hear i ng on Mar ch 25, 2016, t he Cour t t ook

Levi Levi n’ s mot i on under advi advi sement .

See El ec. Cl er k’ s Not es, ECF

No. 62. III. ANALYSIS

I n sup suppor t of hi s mot i on t o sup suppr ess, Levi Levi n con cont ends t hat t he NI T War r ant vi ol at ed t he t er r i t or i al r est r i ct i ons on on t he i ssui ssui ng magi st r at e j udge’ s aut aut hor i t y, 7 an and f ur t her t hat t he

6

The The gov gover er nment ent doe oes s not cont cont est Levi n’ s ar gument ent t hat absen absentt t he NI NI T War r ant ant , i t woul oul d not have ave had had pr obab obabll e cau cause t o sup suppor t i t s Re Resi dent i al War r ant appl i cat cat i on, see see Def . ’ s Mot . 14. Forr t he sake Fo sake of si mpl i ci t y, t he Cour t uses t he phr ase “evi “evi dence sei zed pur suan suant t o t he NI T War r ant ” t o i ncl ude evi dence sei zed pur sua suant t o t he Resi dent i al War r ant becau cause al al l of t hat evi dence i s de der i vat i ve of t he NI T War r ant . [6]


evi evi dence ence obt obt ai ned pur suant suant t o t he NI NI T War r ant ant must be supp suppr essed ess ed i n l i ght of l aw enf or cem cement agent s’ del i ber at e di sr egar d f or t he appl i cab cabl e r ul es and and t he pr pr ej udi ce Lev Levi n suf suf f er ed as a conseq consequ uence. ence.

See Def . ’ s Mot . 6- 7.

The The gover over nment ent r ef ut es ea each ch

of t hese ar ar gument s, and addi t i onal l y ar gues t hat t he good- f ai t h exce xcept i on t o t he excl xcl usi onar y r ul e r ender s supp suppr essi on i nappr opr i at e. A.

See Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. 1. 1.

Magistrate Magistrate J Judge’s udge’s Authority Authority Un Under der the Federal Federal Magistrates Magistrates Act and Rule 4 41(b) 1(b)

Levi Levi n ar gues t hat t he i ss uance of t he NI T War r ant r an af oul of bot h Se Sect i on 636( a) of t he Fe Feder al Magi st r at es Act Act and Rul e 41( b) of t he Fe Fed der al Rul es of of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e. Mot . 5- 7, 12.

See Def . ’ s

The con conduct under l yi ng each of t hese al l eged

vi ol at i ons i s i dent i cal cal : t he magi st r at e j udge’ s i ssua ssuance of a war r ant t o sea sear ch pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out si de of her j udi ci al

7

A mor e pr eci se ch char act er i zat zat i on of Levi Levi n’ s cha chal l enge woul d be t hat t he magi agi st r at e j udg udge who i ss ued t he NI T War r ant ant had no aut hor i t y t o do do so under t he r el evan vant st at ut or y f r amewor k an and f eder al r ul es - - not t hat t he i ssua ssuance of t he war r ant “vi “vi ol at ed” t hese pr ovi si ons, by, f or exampl e, f ai l i ng t o com compl y wi t h pr oced cedur al r equi r ement s. I n t he Cour t ’ s vi ew, t hi s di st i nct i on i s meani ngf ul , s ee ee i nf r a Par t I I I ( B) ( 1) , t hough i t i s on one t hat nei t her t he par t i es no nor ot her cou cour t s ev eval uat i ng si mi l ar cha chal l enges see seem t o appr eci at e, see see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. v. Mi chau chaud, No. 3: 15- cr - 0535151- RJ B, 2016 WL 337 3372 263 at * 5- * 7 ( W. D. Wash. J an. 28, 2016) ( di scussi ng whet her t he NI NI T War r ant “vi ol at es” Fe Fed der al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e 41( b) ) . I n t he i nt er est of con consi st ency wi t h t he par t i es’ br i ef i ngs an and pr i or case casell aw, however , t he Cour t con cont i nues t he t r adi t i on of r ef er r i ng t o act i ons by by a magi st r at e j udge t hat f al l out si de t he scop scope of her aut hor i t y as as “vi ol at i ons” of of t he pr ovi si ons t hat con conf er such such aut hor i t y. [7]


di st r i ct .

See i d.

Mor eover , be becau cause Sect i on 636( a) ex expr essl y

i ncor cor por at es any any au aut hor i t i es gr gr ant ed t o magi st r at e j udges by t he Feder al Rul es of of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e, see see i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 1) , t he Cour t ’ s ana anal yses yses of whet her t he NI T War r ant was st at ut or i l y per mi ss i bl e and and whet her i t was al al l owed under Rul e 41( b) ar e necessa cessarr i l y i nt er t wi ned. 1.

Federal Magistrates Act

Sect i on 636( a) of t he Fe Fed der al Magi st r at es Act Act est abl i she shes “j ur i sdi sdi ct i onal l i mi t at i ons on on t he power of magi st r at e j udge udges s[ . ] ”

Uni t ed St at es v. Kr uege uegerr , 809 809 F. 3d 1109 1109,, 1122 1122 ( 10t 10t h

Ci r . 2015) ( Gor s uc uc h, h, J . , c on onc ur ur r i ng) .

I t pr ovi des , i n r el evant

par t : ( a) Each Uni t ed St at es magi st r at e j udge ser ser vi ng under t hi s cha chapt er sha shal l have wi t hi n t he di st r i ct i n whi ch sessi sessi ons ar e he hel d by t he cou cour t t hat appoi nt ed t he magi st r at e j udge, at ot her pl aces ces wh wher e t hat cou cour t may f unct i on, and el sewher e as aut aut hor i zed by l aw- ( 1) al l power s and and dut i es con conf er r ed or i mposed sed . . . by l aw or by t he Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e[ . ] 28 U. S. C. § 63 636( a) .

Levi Levi n ar gues t hat t he magi st r at e j udge’ s

i ssua ssuance of a war r ant t o sea sear ch pr oper t y out si de of her j udi ci al di s t r i c t vi v i ol at ed t he t er r i t or i al r es t r i c t i ons pr pr ovi ded i n t he f i r st pa par agr aph of Se Sect i on 636( a) .

Def . ’ s Mot . 12.

I n ot her

wor ds, becau ecause t he NI T War r ant ant app appr oved oved a sear sear ch of pr oper oper t y out s i de t he Eas t er n Di s t r i c t of Vi r gi ni a ( “ t he di s t r i c t i n whi c h sessi ons ar ar e hel d by t he cou cour t t hat appoi nt ed t he magi st r at e”) ,

[8]


and nei t her of t he ot her cl auses ses i n t he f i r st par agr aph of Sect i on 636( a) appl i es, Levi Levi n con cont ends t hat t he magi st r at e j udge l acke cked j ur i sdi sdi ct i on t o i ssue ssue i t .

See i d.

The gover nment , f or

i t s pa par t , not es t hat Lev Levi n does no not meani ngf ul l y di di st i ngui sh bet wee een n t he r equ equi r ement ent s of t he st at ut e and and of Rul e 41( b) , and and adva advan nces t he same ar ar gument ent s t o sup suppor t t he magi agi st r at e j udge’ s aut hor i t y t o i ss ue t he NI T War r ant under Sect i on 636( a) and under Ru Rul e 41( b) .

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. 21.

As di di s cu cus s ed ed i n mor e det ai l i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 2) ( i ) , t he Cour our t i s per per suad suaded by Levi Levi n’ s ar gument ent t hat t he NI T War r ant ant i ndeed pu pur por t ed t o au aut hor i ze a sear sear ch of pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out si de t he di st r i ct wher e t he i ssui ssui ng magi st r at e j udge sat sat . The The magi s t r at e j udge udge had had no j ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue s uch a war r ant ant under t he f i r st par agr aph of Sect i on 636( a) .

The Cour t al so

con concl udes t hat Sect i on 636( a) ( 1) i s i napposi t e becau cause Ru Rul e 41( b) di d not con conf er on t he magi st r at e j udge aut hor i t y t o i ssue t he NI T War r ant Lev Levi n cha chal l enges he her e, see see i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 2) , and t he go gover ver nment poi nt s t o no ot her “l aw or . . . Rul e[ ] of Cr i mi nal Pr oced ocedur e” on on whi ch t he magi agi st r at e j udge coul coul d have ave based sed i t s j ur i sdi sdi ct i on pur sua suant t o Sect i on 636( a) ( 1) , see see i nf r a not e 11.

Consequ sequent l y, t he Cour t hol hol ds t hat t he Fe Fed der al

Magi st r at es Act Act di d not aut hor i ze t he magi st r at e j udge t o i ssue t he NI NI T War r ant her e. 2.

Rule 41(b)

[9]


Rul e 41( b) , t i t l ed “Au “Aut hor i t y t o I ssue ssue a War r ant , ” pr ovi des as as f ol l ows: At t he r equest of a f eder al l aw enf or cem cement of f i cer cer or an at t or ney f or t he gover over nment ent : ( 1) a magi st r at e j udge wi t h aut hor i t y i n t he di st r i ct - - or i f none i s r eason sonabl y avai l abl e, a j udge of a s t at e c ou our t of r ec or or d i n t he di s t r i c t - - has au aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant t o sea sear ch f or and sei ze a per son or pr oper t y l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct ; ( 2) a magi st r at e j udge wi t h aut hor i t y i n t he di st r i ct has aut aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant f or a per son or pr oper t y ou out si de t he di st r i ct i f t he per son son or pr oper t y i s l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct when t he war r ant ant i s i ss ued but mi ght move ove or or be moved oved out out si de t he di st r i ct bef or e t he war r ant i s ex execut cut ed; ( 3) a magi st r at e j udge - - i n an i nvest i gat i on of domes t i c t er r or i s m or i nt er nat i onal t er r or i s m - - wi t h aut hor i t y i n any di s t r i c t i n whi c h ac t i vi t i es r el at ed t o t he t er r or i sm may ha have occur ccur r ed has aut aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant f or a per son or pr oper t y wi t hi n or out s i de t hat di s t r i c t ; ( 4) a magi st r at e j udge wi t h aut hor i t y i n t he di st r i ct has au aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue a war r ant t o i nst al l wi t hi n t he di st r i ct a t r acki cki ng devi ce; ce; t he war r ant may au aut hor i ze use of t he dev devii ce t o t r ack t he movem ovement ent of a per per son or pr oper t y l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct , out si de t he di s t r i c t , or bo bot h; and ( 5) a magi st r at e j udge havi ng aut hor i t y i n any di st r i ct wher e act i vi t i es r el at ed t o t he cr i me may have occur ccur r ed, or i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, may i ssue ssue a war r ant f or pr oper t y t hat i s l ocat cat ed out si de t he j ur i s di di c t i on of any s t at e or di di s t r i c t , but wi t hi n any of t he f ol l owi ng: ( A) a Uni t ed St at es t er r i t or y, possessi ssessi on, or c ommonweal t h; ( B) t he pr emi ses - - no mat t er who owns t hem - - of a Un Uni t ed St at es di pl omat i c or or con consul sul ar mi ssi on i n a f or ei gn st at e, i ncl udi ng any ap appur t enant [10]


bui l di ng, par t of a bui l di ng, or l and used sed f or t he mi ssi on' s pur pur poses; ses; or ( C) a r esi dence ence and and an any app appur t enan enantt l and and ow owned or l ea eased sed by t he Un Uni t ed St at es and and used used by Un Uni t ed St at es pe per sonn sonnel ass i gned t o a Uni t ed St at es di pl omat i c or or con consul sul ar mi ssi on i n a f or ei gn s t at at e. Fed Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 41( b) . The gover gover nment ent ar gues gues f or a l i ber ber al const cons t r uct i on of Rul e 41( b) t hat woul d aut hor i ze t he t ype ype of sear sear ch t hat occur ccur r ed her e pur suan suant t o t he NI T War r ant ant .

See Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. 18- 20.

Spec i f i c al al l y, i t ar gues t hat s ub ubs ec ec t i ons ( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 4) of Rul e 41( b) ar e each suf suf f i ci ent t o sup suppor t t he magi st r at e j udge’ s i ssuan ssuance of t he NI T War r ant . t he gover over nment ent ’ s ar gument ent s.

I d.

Thi s Cour t i s unper sua suaded by

Becau ecause t he NI T War r ant ant pur por t ed

t o aut hor i ze a sear sear ch of pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out si de t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, and becau cause none of t he excep cept i ons t o t he gener al t er r i t or i al l i mi t at i on of Rul e 41( b) ( 1) appl i es , t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he magi st r at e j udge l acked cked aut hor i t y un under Rul e 41( b) t o i ssue t he NI T War r ant . i.

Rule 41(b)(1)

The gover gover nment ent advances advances t wo di s t i nct l i nes nes of ar gum gument ent as t o why Rul e 41( b) ( 1) aut hor i zes t he NI T War r ant .

One i s t hat

al l of t he pr pr oper t y t hat was s ear che ched pur sua suant t o t he NI T War r ant was act act ual l y l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, wher e t he magi st r at e j udge sat sat : si nce Lev Levi n - - as a

[11]


user ser of Websi t e A - - “r et r i eved t he NI T f r om a ser ser ver i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, and t he NI T sen sent [ Lev Levi n’ s] net wor k i nf or mat i on back t o a ser ser ver i n t hat di st r i ct , ” t he gover nment ar gues t he sear sear ch i t cond conduct ed pur suan suant t o t he NI T War r ant ant pr oper l y can can be under st ood as occur occur r i ng wi t hi n t he East er n Di st r i ct of of Vi Vi r gi ni a.

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. 20 20.

Thi s i s not hi ng but a

s t r ai ned, af t er - t he- f ac t r at i onal i z a att i on.

I n i t s expl anat i on of

t he “Pl ace t o be Sea earr ched ched,, ” t he NI T War r ant ant made ade cl ea earr t hat t he NI T woul d be use used d t o “ob “obt ai n[ ] i nf or mat i on” f r om var i ous “act “act i vat i ng com comput er s[ . ] ” 8

NI T War r ant 32 32.

As i s cl ear f r om

Levi Levi n’ s case - - hi s com comput er was l ocat cat ed i n Massachu ssachuset t s - - at l east some of t he act i vat vat i ng com comput er s wer e l ocat cat ed out si de of t he East er n Di st r i ct of of Vi r gi ni a.

That t he Websi t e A ser ser ver i s

l ocat cat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of of Vi r gi ni a i s, f or pur poses ses of of Rul e 41( b) ( 1) , i mmat er i al , s i nc e i t i s no not t he s er er ver i t s el el f f r om whi ch t he r el evan vant i nf or mat i on was sou sought .

See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mi chau chaud d, No. 3: 15- cr - 05351- RJ B, 2016 WL 337 337263 at at *6 ( W. D. Wash. sh. J an. 28, 2016) ( exam xami ni ng t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of t he

8

Tha That t he cove coverr page of of t he NI T War r ant appl i cat i on i ndi cat cat ed t hat t he pr pr oper t y t o be be sea sear che ched was l ocat cat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, see see NI T War r ant 1, does no not al t er t hi s concl concl usi on. on. See Mi chau chaud, 2016 WL 33 337263 at *4 ( obser obser vi ng t hat t o r ead t hi s NI NI T War r ant as au aut hor i zi ng a sear sear ch of pr oper t y l ocat cat ed excl usi vel y wi t hi n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, on t he basi s of of i t s cov cover page, i s “an “an over l y na nar r ow r eadi ng of t he NI T War r ant t hat i gnor es t he sum sum t ot al of i t s c on ont ent . ” ) . [12]


same NI T War r ant ant and and concl concl udi ng t hat Rul e 41 41( b) ( 1) di d not aut hor i ze t he sea sear ch “becau “because se t he ob obj ect of t he sea sear ch and sei zur zur e was Mr . Mi cha chaud’ s comput er , not l ocat ocat ed i n t he East er n Di s t r i c t of of Vi r gi gi ni a” ) . The gover gover nment ent ’ s ot her ar gum gument ent i s t hat wher her e, as her her e, i t i s i mpossi bl e t o i dent i f y i n advance t he l ocat cat i on of t he pr oper t y t o be be sea sear che ched, Rul e 41 41( b) ( 1) ought be i nt er pr et ed t o al l ow “a j udge i n t he di st r i ct wi t h t he st r ongest kno known con connect i on t o t he sear sear ch” ch” t o i ssue a war r ant . 20. Rul e.

See Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp.

Thi s ar ar gument f ai l s, t hough, becau cause i t adds wor ds t o t he See Lop Lopez- Sot o v. Hawayek, yek, 175 F. 3d 170, 173 ( 1st Ci r .

1999) ( “Co “Cour t s ha have an obl i gat i on t o r ef r ai n f r om embel l i shi shi ng st at ut es by by i nser t i ng l anguage t hat Congr ess op opt ed t o omi t . ”) . ii.

Rule 41(b)(2)

Rul e 41( b) ( 2) con conf er s on on magi st r at e j udges t he aut hor i t y “t o i ssue ssue a war r ant of a per son son or pr oper t y out si de t he di st r i ct i f t he per son son or pr oper t y i s l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct when t he war r ant ant i s i ss ued but mi ght move ove o orr be moved oved out out si de t he di st r i ct be bef or e t he war r ant i s ex execut cut ed. ” 41( b) ( 2) .

Fed Fe d. R. Cr i m. P.

The gover ver nment ar gues t hat becau cause t he NI T ( i . e. , t he

com comput er code code used t o gener at e t he i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on f r om user ser s’ com comput er s) was l ocat cat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a at t he t i me t he war r ant was i ssue ssued, t hi s sub subsect sect i on appl i es.


As di scussed scussed above, ve, however ver , t he [13]


act ual pr oper oper t y t o be sear ched ched was not not t he NI T nor t he ser ver ver on whi ch i t was l ocat cat ed, but r at her t he user s’ com comput er s. Ther Ther ef or e, Rul e 41( 41( b) ( 2) i s i napp napposi osi t e. iii. Rule 41(b)(4)

The Cour our t i s s i mi l ar l y unpe unperr s uade uaded d by t he gover gover nment ent ’ s ar gument r egar di ng Rul e 41( b) ( 4) , whi ch aut hor i zes magi st r at e j udge udges s i n a par par t i cul ar di s t r i ct “ t o i s s ue a war r ant ant t o i nst al l wi t hi n t he di st r i ct a t r acki cki ng devi ce, ce, ” eve even wher e t he per son son or pr oper t y on on whom t he devi ce i s i nst al l ed l at er moves ves out out si de t he di st r i ct , see see Fe Fed d. R. Cr i m. P. 41( b) ( 4) .

The gover nment l i kens

t he t r ansmi t t al of t he NI T t o Websi t e A user s’ com comput er s t o t he i nst al l at i on of a t r acki cki ng devi ce i n a con cont ai ner hol di ng con cont r aband, i nsof ar as each each per mi t s t he gove over nment t o i dent i f y t he l ocat cat i on of i l l egal mat er i al t hat has moved out si de t he r el evant j ur i sdi sdi ct i on.

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. 19 19- 20.

Thi s anal ogy does

not per suad suade t he Cou Courr t t hat t he NI NI T pr pr oper oper l y may be con consi der ed a t r acki cki ng devi ce, ce, r egar dl ess of of wher e t he “i nst al l at i on” occur ccur r ed. ed.

9

9

I ndeed, as t he cou cour t poi nt ed out i n Mi cha chaud, whi ch i nvol vol ved ved t he same NI NI T War r ant ant : I f t he ‘ i nst al l at i on’ occur ccur r ed on t he gover nment con cont r ol l ed com comput er , l ocat cat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, appl yi ng t he t r acki cki ng devi ce excep cept i on br ea eaks ks dow down, becau ecause [ user s of Websi ebsi t e A] A] never ever con cont r ol l ed t he gover ver nment - con cont r ol l ed com comput er , unl i ke a car car wi t h a t r acki cki ng devi ce l eavi ng a par t i cul cul ar di s t r i c t . I f t he i ns t al a l l at i on oc c ur r ed on [ t he [14]


B.

Suppression

Havi ng co concl uded t hat nei t her t he Fe Feder al Magi st r at es Act nor Rul e 41( b) aut hor i zed t he i ss uance of t he NI T War r ant , t he Cour t now t ur ns t o t he qu quest i on of whet her supp suppr ess i on of t he evi dence ob obt ai ned pur suan suant t o t he NI NI T War r ant i s an appr opr i at e r emedy. edy.

Levi Levi n ar gues t hat t hi s evi evi dence ence oug ought be supp suppr essed

becau cause t he magi st r at e j udge l acke cked j ur i sdi sdi ct i on t o i ssue ssue t he NI T War r ant ant and and beca becau use Levi n was pr ej udi ced by t he Ru Rul e 41 41 vi ol at i on.

Def . ’ s Mot . 1313- 14.

The gover ver nment ar ar gues t hat eve even n

i f t he i ss uance of of t he NI NI T War r ant was not not sanct sanct i oned by Ru Rul e 41 41 or Sect i on 63 636( a) , supp suppr essi on i s t oo ext ext r eme a r emedy, as any vi ol at i on of t he r el evant r ul e or st at ut e was mer el y mi ni st er i al and t her e was no no r esul sul t i ng pr ej udi ce t o Lev Levi n.

Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp.

i ndi vi dual Websi t e A user ’ s] com comput er , appl yi ng t he t r acki cki ng devi ce excep cept i on agai n f ai l s, becau cause [ t he user ’ s] com comput er was neve neverr physi cal cal l y l ocat cat ed wi t hi n t he Eas t er n Di s t r i c t of of Vi r gi ni a. 2016 WL 33 337263 at * 6. I n any any case, case, t he Cour our t i s per per suaded suaded by t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of Texas’ s i nt er pr et at i on of “i nst al l at i on. ” See I n r e War r ant t o Sear ch a Tar get Comput er at Pr emi ses Unknow known, 958 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 ( S. D. Te Tex. x. 2013) ( r ej ect i ng gover nment ’ s app appl i cat cat i on f or a war r ant r emot el y t o ext r act i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on f r om a co comput er i n an unkno known l ocat cat i on, not i ng t hat “t her e i s no no sho showi ng t hat t he i nst al l at i on of t he ‘ t r acki cki ng devi ce’ ce’ ( i . e. t he sof sof t war e) woul d t ake pl ace wi t hi n t hi s di st r i ct . To t he con cont r ar y, t he sof sof t war e woul d be i nst al l ed on a com comput er whose l ocat ocat i on coul coul d be be an anywher e on on t he pl anet . ”) . Under t hat app appr oach, ch, t he “i nst al l at i on” of t he NI T occu ccur r ed not wi t hi n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, wher e t he ser ser ver i s l ocat cat ed, but r at her at t he si t e of each user ser ’ s com comput er . See i d. [15]


16.

Fur Fur t her , t he gover ver nment cont cont ends t hat t he good- f ai t h

exce xcept i on t o t he excl xcl usi onar y r ul e ought pr ecl ude sup suppr essi on of t he evi dence sei sei zed zed.

I d. at 21 21- 23.

The Cour our t concl udes udes t hat hat t he vi ol at i on at i s s ue her her e i s di st i nct f r om t he t echn chni cal cal Rul e 41 vi ol at i ons t hat have been deemed i nsuf suf f i ci ent t o war r ant sup suppr essi on i n past cases, cases, and, i n any even vent , Levi Levi n was pr pr ej udi ced ced by t he vi ol at i on.

Mor eover ver ,

t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on i s i nappl i cab cabl e becau cause t he war r ant at i ssue her e was voi voi d ab i ni t i o. 1.

Nature of the Rule 4 41 1 Viol Violation ation

A vi ol at i on of Rul e 41 t hat i s pu pur el y t echn chni cal cal or mi ni st er i al gi ves ves r i se t o sup suppr essi on onl y wher e t he def endant demonst r at es t hat he suf suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul sul t of t he vi ol at i on. Ci r . 1986) .

See Uni t ed St at es v. v. Bonner , 808 F. 2d 864, 869 ( 1st The gover ver nment ent appar ent l y subm submi t s t hat al l Rul e 41

vi ol at i ons “ar “ar e essen ssent i al l y mi ni st er i al , ” an and acco ccor di ngl y t hat supp suppr essi on i s an i napp appr opr opr i at e r emedy edy ab absent sent a show showi ng of pr ej udi ce. ce.

Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp. 16 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. v. Bur gos-

Mont es, 786 F. 3d 92, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ) . Rul e 41, however ever , has bot bot h pr oced ocedur al and and subst subst ant ant i ve pr ovi si ons - - and t he di f f er ence mat t er s.

Cour t s f aced ced wi t h

vi ol at i ons of of Rul e 41’ s pr pr oced cedur al r equi r ement s ha have gener al l y f ound such such vi ol at i ons t o be mer el y mi ni st er i al or t echn chni cal cal , and

[16]


as a r esul esul t have ave det det er mi ned supp suppr essi on t o be be un unwar r ant ant ed. ed.

10

By

con cont r ast , t hi s case case i nvol ves a vi vi ol at i on of Rul e 41( b) , whi ch i s “a sub subst ant i ve pr ovi si on[ . ] ”

Uni t ed St at es v. Ber ko kos, s, 543 F. 3d

392, 398 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Un Uni t ed St at es v. Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d 1109, 1115 n. 7 ( 10t h Ci r . 2015) ( not i ng t hat Rul e 41( b) ( 1) “i s un uni que f r om ot her pr ovi si ons of of Rul e 41 becau cause i t i mpl i cat cat es sub subst ant i ve j udi ci al aut hor i t y, ” an and acco ccor di ngl y con concl udi ng t hat past case cases s i nvol vi ng vi ol at i ons of of ot her sub subsect sect i ons of of Rul e 41 “of “of f er l i mi t ed gui dance”) ce”) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Thus, i t does no not f ol l ow

f r om case cases s i nvol vi ng vi ol at i ons of of Rul e 41’ s pr pr oced cedur al pr ovi si ons t hat t he Rul e 41( b) vi ol at i on at i ssue ssue her e - - whi ch i nvol ves t he aut hor i t y of of t he magi st r at e j udge t o i ssue ssue t he war r ant , and con conseq sequent l y, t he under l yi ng val i di t y of of t he

10

Th These vi ol at i ons i mpl i cat cat e t he var i ous sub subsect sect i ons of of Rul e 41, wi t h t he excep cept i on of sub subsect sect i on ( b) . See, e. g. , Bur gos- Mont es, 786 F. 3d at 108- 09 ( magi st r at e j udge’ s “f ai l ur e . . . t o def i ne t he t i me per i od of t he sea sear ch when t he f or m i t sel sel f pr ovi des t hat t he sear sear ch i s t o be com compl et ed wi t hi n [ 10 days] , and . . . f ai l ur e t o desi gnat e a magi st r at e t o whom t he f or m sho shoul d be r et ur ned” was t echn chni cal cal vi ol at i on of Rul e 41( e) ) ; Bonner , 808 F. 2d at 869 ( of f i cer cer s’ f ai l ur e t o com compl y wi t h Rul e 41( f ) r equi r ement of l eavi ng a co copy of of t he war r ant at t he pl pl ace t o be sear sear che ched was mi ni st er i al and di d not cal cal l f or sup suppr essi on of r esul sul t i ng evi dence) ce) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dauphi nee, 538 F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) ( “The “The var var i ous pr pr oced cedur al st eps r equi r ed by Rul e 41( d) ar e basi cal cal l y mi ni st er i al [ , ] ” an and t her ef or e sup suppr essi on of evi dence obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of t hat pr ovi si on was no not war r ant ed absent sent show showi ng of pr ej udi ce) ce) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr yor yor , 652 F. Supp. 1353, 1365- 66, ( D. Me. 1987) ( vi ol at i on of Rul e 41 41( c) ’ s pr oced cedur al r equi r ement s r egar di ng ni ght t i me sea sear che ches di di d not cal cal l f or sup suppr essi on) . [17]


war r ant - - was si mpl y mi ni st er i al .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Gl over ,

736 F. 3d 509, 515 ( D. C. Ci r . 2013) ( con concl udi ng t hat a Ru Rul e 41 41( b) vi ol at i on con const i t ut es a “j ur i sdi sdi ct i onal f l aw” t hat can cannot “be “be excuse cused d as a ‘ t echn chni cal cal def ect ’ ”) . Becau cause t he vi ol at i on her e i nvol ved “sub “subst ant i ve j udi ci al aut hor i t y” r at her t han si mpl y “t he pr oced cedur es f or obt ai ni ng and i ssui ng war r ant s, ” Kr Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1115 n. 7, t he Cour t can cannot con concl ude t hat i t was mer el y mi ni st er i al ; i n f act , becau cause Rul e 41( b) di d not gr ant her aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue t he NI T war r ant , t he magi st r at e j udge was wi t hout j ur i sdi sdi ct i on t o do so.

11

The

gover ver nment cha char act er i zes zes Levi Levi n’ s cha chal l enge as as t ar get i ng “t he l ocat cat i on of t he sea sear ch, ch, not pr obabl e ca cause or or t he ab absence sence of j udi udi ci al appr appr oval . ”

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 16. 16.

Her e, how however , becaus because e

t he magi st r at e j udge l acke cked aut hor i t y, and t hus j ur i sdi sdi ct i on, t o i ssue ssue t he NI T War r ant , t her e si mpl y was no no j udi ci al appr oval . See Uni t ed St at es v. v. Houst oust on, on, 965 F. Supp. 2d 855, 902 n. 12 ( E. D. Tenn. Tenn. 2013 2013)) ( “ A s ear ch war r ant ant i s s ued ued by an i ndi ndi vi dual dual wi t hout hout

11

For For t he magi st r at e j udge t o ha have ha had j ur i sdi sdi ct i on t o i ss ue t he war r ant ant under Sect i on 636( a) , she must have ave had had aut aut hor i t y t o do do so under Rul e 41 41( b) , as t he gov gover er nment ent has poi nt ed t o no al t er nat i ve st at ut or y aut hor i t y or f eder al r ul e t hat cou coul d ser ser ve as t he basi s f or such such j ur i sdi sdi ct i on. Mor eover , t he gover ver nment ’ s ar gument r egar di ng cou cour t s’ i nher ent aut hor i t y t o i ssue war r ant s, see Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp. 20- 21, does no not ext end t o magi st r at e j udges, whose aut hor i t y der i ves f r om - - and i s bounded by - - t he spe speci f i c st at ut or y pr ovi si ons an and r ul es di scussed scussed her ei n. [18]


l egal aut hor i t y t o do so i s ‘ voi d ab i ni t i o’ ”) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mast er , 614 F. 3d 236, 241 ( 6t h Ci r . 2010) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pel t i er , 344 F. Supp. 2d 539, 548 ( E. D. Mi ch. ch. 2004) ( “A sear sear ch war r ant si gned by by a pe per son who l acks t he au aut hor i t y t o i s s ue ue i t i s vo voi d as a mat t er of l aw. ” ) ( c i t at i on omi t t ed) ; c f . St at e v. Sur owi ecki , 440 A. 2d 798, 799 ( Mont . 1981) ( “[ A] l awf ul si gnat ur e on on t he sea sear ch war r ant by t he pe per son aut hor i zed t o i s s ue ue i t [ i s ] es s en ent i al t o i t s i s s ua uanc e[ e[ , ] ” s uc uc h t hat an unsi gned war r ant i s voi d un under st at e l aw and and con conf er s no aut hor i t y t o act act , despi spi t e ex exi st ence of pr obabl e ca cause) se) . NI Ts, whi l e r ai si ng ser ser i ous con concer cer ns, enf or cem cement t ool s.

12

ar ar e l egi t i mat e l aw

I ndeed, ed, per haps magi st r at e j udges shou shoul d

have t he aut hor i t y t o i ssue t hese t ype ypes of of war r ant s.

See I n r e

War r ant ant t o Sea Searr ch a Tar Tar get get Comput put er at Pr emi s es Unkn Unknow own, 958 958 F. Supp. 2d at at 761 ( not i ng t hat “t her e may wel l be a good ood r ea eason son

12

The The Cou Courr t expr xpr ess es no opi ni on on t he use use of of t hi s par t i cul cul ar pol i ce t act i c un under t hese ci r cum cumst ances, ces, but not es t hat i t s use use i n t he con cont ext of i nvest i gat i ng and pr osecu secutt i ng chi chi l d por nogr aphy has gi gi ven ven r i se t o si gni f i can cant debat e. See, e. g. , The Et hi cs of of a Chi l d Por nogr aphy St i ng, N. Y. Ti mes, J an. 27, 2016, ht t p: / / www. nyt i mes. com com/ r oomf or deba ebat e/ 2016/ 01/ 27/ t heet hi cs- of - a- chi chi l d- por nogr aphy- st i ng. The con cont i nui ng har m t o t he vi ct i ms of of t hi s hi hi deous f or m of chi chi l d abuse i s t he di st r i but i on of t he phot ogr aphs an and vi deos i n whi ch t he vi ct i ms ap appear . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Kear ney, 672 F. 3d 81, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Unl i ke t hose under cov cover st i ngs wher e t he gov gover er nment ent buys cont r aban aband d dr ugs t o cat cat ch t he dea deall er s, her e t he go gover ver nment di ss emi nat ed t he chi chi l d ob obsceni sceni t y t o cat cat ch t he pu pur cha chaser s - - somet hi ng aki n t o t he go gover ver nment i t sel f sel sel l i ng dr ugs t o make t he st i ng. [19]


t o updat e t he t er r i t or i al l i mi t s of of [ Rul e 41] i n l i ght of adva advan nci ng comput er sear ch t echn echnol ogy”) ogy”) .

13

Toda Today, y, however ever , no

13

Whet her magi agi st r at e j udges shou shoull d have ave t he aut aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue war r ant s t o sea sear ch pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out si de of t hei r di st r i ct s un under ci r cum cumst ances ces l i ke t he ones pr pr esent sent ed her e ha has been t he sub subj ect of r ecen cent del i ber at i ons by by t he Advi sor y Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal nal Rul es. See See Memor andu andum m f r om Hon. on. Ree eena na Raggi , Advi sor y Co Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es, t o Hon. J ef f r ey S. S. Sut t on, Chai r , Commi t t ee on on Rul es of Pr act i ce an and Pr oced cedur e ( “Ra “Raggi Mem. ”) ( May 5, 5, 2014) ; Let Let t er f r om Myt hi l i Raman, Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , t o Hon. Reena Raggi , Chai r , Advi sor y Commi t t ee on on t he Cr Cr i mi nal Rul es ( “Ra “Raman Let Let t er ”) ( Sept . 18, 2013) ; cf . Zach Ler Ler ner , A War r ant t o Hack: An Anal ysi s of t he Pr oposed oposed Amend endment ent s t o Rul Rul e 41 41 of t he Fed Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr oced cedur e, 18 Yal e J . L. & Tech. ch. 26 ( 2016) . As Levi Levi n poi nt s ou out i n hi s mot i on, see see Def . ’ s Mot . 18- 19, t he f ol l owi ng pr oposed sed amendment ent t o Rul e 41( b) i s cur r ent l y un under con consi der at i on: ( 6)

a magi st r at e j udge wi t h aut hor i t y i n any di st r i ct wher e act i vi t i es r el at ed t o a cr i me may ha have occur ccur r ed has aut aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant t o use use r emot e acce access ss t o sea sear ch el el ect r oni c s t or age medi a and t o sei sei ze or cop copy el ect r oni cal cal l y st or ed i nf or mat i on l ocat cat ed wi t hi n or out si de t hat di s t r i c t i f : ( A)

t he di st r i ct wher e t he medi a or i nf or mat i on i s l ocat ocat ed has bee been n concea conceall ed t hr oug ough t echn chnol ogi cal cal means; or

( B)

i n an i nvest i gat i on of a vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 103 1030( a) ( 5) , t he medi a ar e pr ot ect ed comput put er s t hat hat have have been been dam damaged aged wi t hout hout aut hor i zat zat i on and ar e l ocat cat ed i n f i ve or mor e di s t r i c t s .

Pr el i mi nar y Dr Dr af t of Pr opose oposed d Amend endment ent s t o t he Fe Fed der al Rul es of of Appel l at e, Bankr upt cy, cy, Ci vi l , and Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur ocedur e 337 337-- 38 ( “ Pr opos oposed ed Rul e 41 41 Amendm endment ent ” ) , Commi t t ee on Rul es of of Pr act i ce and Pr oced cedur e of t he J udi ci al Conf er ence ence of t he Uni t ed St at es ( August 2014) , ht t p: / / www. uscou scour t s. gov/ f i l e/ pr el i mi nar y- dr af t - pr oposed sedamendment s- f eder al - r ul es- appel l at e- bankrupt krupt cycy- ci vi l - andc r i mi nal . [20]


magi st r at e j udge has t he au aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue t hi s NI NI T war r ant . Accor ccor di ngl y, t he war r ant her e was voi voi d. 2.

Prejudice

Even ven wer e t he Cou Courr t t o con concl ude t hat t he Ru Rul e 41 41( b) vi ol at i on was mi ni st er i al , sup suppr essi on woul d st i l l be appr opr i at e, as Levi Levi n has dem demonst r at ed t hat he suf f er ed pr ej udi ce.

See Bur gos- Mont ont es, 786 F. 3d at 109 109 ( a Rul e 41

vi ol at i on “do “does not not r equi r e sup suppr essi on unl ess t he de def endant can can demonst r at e pr ej udi ce”) ce”) ( emphasi s add added) ; cf . Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1117 ( af f i r mi ng di st r i ct cou cour t ’ s or or der gr ant i ng def endant ’ s mot i on t o supp suppr ess “[ b] ecau ecause [ t he def end endant ant ] met hi s bur bur den of est abl i shi shi ng pr ej udi ce and becau cause sup suppr essi on f ur t her s t he pur pose of of t he excl usi onar y r ul e by de det er r i ng l aw enf or cem cement ent f r om see seeki ng and obt ai ni ng war r ant s t hat cl ear l y vi ol at e Rul e

Pr opon oponen entt s of t he amend endment ent cont cont end end t hat i t oug ought be adop adoptt ed i n or der “t o add addr ess t wo i ncr ea easi si ngl ngl y com common si t uat i ons: ( 1) wher e t he war r ant suf suf f i ci ent l y descr i bes t he com comput er t o be be sea sear che ched but t he di di st r i ct wi t hi n whi ch t hat comput er i s l ocat ocat ed i s unkn unknow own, and and ( 2) wher e t he i nvest vest i gat i on r equi r es l aw enf or cem cement t o coo coor di nat e sear sear ches ches of numer ous com comput er s i n nu numer ous di st r i ct s. ” Raman Let t er 1. Whi l e t he Ad Advi sor y Com Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es unan unanii mousl y appr appr oved t he pr pr oposed oposed amendm endment , Raggi aggi Mem. 5, i t has dr dr awn cri t i ci sm f r om st akehol der s r angi ng f r om t he Amer i can can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Un Uni on, see see Let Let t er f r om Amer i can can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Un Uni on t o Member s of t he Ad Advi sor y Co Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es ( Oct . 31, 2014) , t o Googl e, see Let Let t er f r om Ri cha char d Sal gado, Di r ect or , Law Law Enf or cement and I nf or mat i on Secur cur i t y, Googl e I nc. , t o J udi ci al Conf er ence Advi sor y Co Commi t t ee on on Cr Cr i mi nal Rul es ( Fe Feb b. 13, 2015) . [21]


41( b) ( 1) ”) .

“To show show pr ej udi ce, ce, def endant s must show show t hat t hey

wer e sub subj ect ed t o a sear sear ch t hat mi ght not have ave o occur ccur r ed or woul oul d not have ave bee been n so abr abr asi ve had Rul e 41 41[ ] bee een n f ol l owed. ed. ” 14 Bonn onner , 808 F. 2d at 869 869.

Her e, had Rul e 41( b) bee een n f ol l owed, ed,

t he magi st r at e j udge 15 woul oul d not have ave i ss ued t he NI T War r ant ant , and and t her ef or e t he sear sear ch cond conduct ed pur suan suant t o t hat War r ant ant mi ght

14

C Co our t s ou out si de t hi s di di st r i ct f aced ced wi t h Rul e 41( b) vi ol at i ons have have con consi der ed ( and i n some cases, cases, adopt ed) al t er nat i ve f or mul at i ons of t he pr ej udi ce i nqui r y. See, e. g. , Kr ueger eger , 809 F. F. 3d at at 1116 ( eval eval uat i ng gov gover er nment ent ’ s pr opose oposed d pr ej udi ce st andar d, “wh “whi ch woul d pr ecl ude def endant s f r om est abl i shi shi ng pr ej udi ce i n t hi s con cont ext so l ong as t he [ g] over ver nment hypo ypot het i cal cal l y cou coul d have obt ai ned t he war r ant f r om a di f f er ent f eder al magi st r at e j udge wi t h war r ant - i ssui ssui ng aut aut hor i t y under t he Rul e”) ; Mi chau chaud d, 2016 WL 337263 at * 6- 7. I n Mi cha chaud, t he cou cour t r easone soned t hat t he most “s ensi bl e i nt er pr et at i on” of of t he pr ej udi ce st andar d i n t hi s co cont ext i s aski ng “wh “whet her t he evi dence ence obt ai ned f r om a war r ant t hat vi ol at es Ru Rul e 41( b) cou coul d have been avai vai l abl e by ot ot her l awf ul mea eans[ ns[ . ] ” 2016 2016 WL 3372 337263 63 at *6 * 6 ( emphasi phasi s adde added) d) . Thi Thi s Cour our t r espe spect f ul l y decl i nes t o f ol l ow t he Mi cha chaud cou cour t ’ s ap appr oach, ch, i nst ead ad adher i ng t o t he pr pr ej udi ce st andar d ge gener al l y ap appl i cab cabl e t o Rul e 41 vi ol at i ons. Cf . Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1116 ( r ej ect i ng gover over nment ent ’ s pr opose oposed d pr ej udi ce st and andar d, whi ch “wou “woull d pr ecl ude def endant s f r om est abl i shi shi ng pr ej udi ce i n t hi s con cont ext so l ong as t he Gover over nment ent hypot ypot het i cal l y cou coul d have ave ob obt ai ned t he war r ant ant f r om a di f f er ent f eder al magi st r at e j udge wi t h war r ant - i ssui ssui ng aut hor i t y un under t he Rul e[ , ] ” r easoni soni ng t hat “[ w] hen i t com comes t o somet hi ng as basi basi c as who can can i ss ue a war r ant ant , we si mpl y cann cannot accep ccept such a spe specul cul at i ve appr oach” ch” and t hat i nst ead t he st andar d “s houl d be anchor chor ed t o t he f act s as t hey act ual l y occu ccur r ed”) . 15

Th Thi s i s no not t o say say t hat a di st r i ct j udge cou coul d not have i ss ued t he NI T War r ant , si nce Rul e 41( b) and and Sect i on 636( a) bear onl y on on t he au aut hor i t y of of magi st r at e j udges t o i ssue ssue war r ant s. See i nf r a Par t I I I ( B) ( 4) . [22]


not have occur occur r ed. ed.

16

See Kr ueger eger , 809 F. 3d at 11 1116 ( hol di ng t hat

def endant suf suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul sul t of havi ng been sub subj ect ed t o a sea sear ch t hat vi ol at ed Rul e 41( b) , si nce t hat s ea earr ch “mi ght ght not not have have occ occur ur r ed because because t he Gover over nment ent woul oul d not not have obt ai ned [ t he war r ant ] had Rul e 41 41( b) ( 1) been f ol l owed. ”) . Cont r ast Uni t ed St at es v. Scot cot t , 83 F. Supp. 2d 187, 203 ( D. Mass. 2000) ( Rul e 41( d) vi ol at i on di d not pr ej udi ce def endant , si nce “t he nat nat ur e of of t he sear sear ch woul oul d not have ave chan chang ged even even i f [ t he def end endant ant ] had bee een n gi ven ven a copy copy of of t he war r ant ant pr i or t o t he sea sear ch, ch, as r equi r ed under t he r ul es) ; Uni t ed St at es v. v. J ones, 949 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 ( D. Mass. 2013) ( Sar i s, C. J . ) ( l aw enf or cem cement of f i cer cer ’ s f ai l ur e t o l eave t he de def endant wi t h a co copy of t he war r ant , as r equi r ed by Rul e 41( f ) , was no not pr ej udi ci al ) . To r ebut ebut Levi n’ s pr ej udi udi ce ar gum gument ent , t he gover gover nment ent appear appear s t o i gnor e t he NI T War r ant al t oget her , bal dl y st at i ng t hat “[ w] her e t her e i s pr pr obabl e cau cause, se, j udi ci al appr oval , and t he comput er ser ver ver whi ch t he def def end endant ant access access ed t o vi vi ew chi chi l d por nogr aphy was ph physi cal cal l y l ocat cat ed i n t he j ur i sdi sdi ct i on wher e t he i ssui ng magi st r at e was l ocat cat ed, t her e ca can be no no pr pr ej udi ce t o t he

16

I t f ol l ows f r om t hi s t hat t he gover ver nment mi ght not have obt ai ned t he evi dence i t sei zed zed pur sua suant t o t he Resi dent i al War r ant , si nce t he ap appl i cat cat i on f or t hat war r ant was based based on i nf or mat i on i t acqu cqui r ed t hr ough t he execu xecutt i on of t he NI T War r ant . As t he gover ver nment i t sel f poi nt s ou out , i t “ha “had no way t o kno know wher e t he def endant was wi wi t hout f i r st usi ng t he NI T[ . ] ” Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp. 15. [23]


def endant . ”


Si mpl y put , t hi s i s not t he

st andar d f or det er mi ni ng pr ej udi ce, ce, and t he gover ver nment di r ect s t he Cour t t o no aut hor i t y t o sup suppor t i t s asser sser t i on.

Mor eover ver ,

as di di scussed scussed above, ve, t he Rul e 41( b) vi ol at i on her e had t he ef f ect of vi t i at i ng t he pur por t ed j udi ci al appr oval so, so, even by t hi s st andar d, t he gover ver nment ’ s ar ar gument agai nst pr ej udi ce must f ai l . 3.

Good-Faith Exception

Fi nal l y, t he gover ver nment ar gues t hat , even ven i f t he NI T War r ant vi ol at ed t he Fe Feder al Magi st r at es Act Act and Rul e 41 41( b) , t he Cour our t oug ought not excl excl ude t he evi evi dence ence sei zed pur suan suant t o t he NI T War r ant ant becau ecause t he l aw enf enf or cement ent of f i cer s her her e act act ed i n good ood f ai t h.

See Gov’ t ’ s Resp. sp. 21 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Leo Leon, 468

U. S. 897, 918, 926 ( 1984) ) .

Whet her t he good- f ai t h excep xcept i on

appl i es wh wher e a war r ant was voi voi d i s a qu quest i on of f i r st i mpr essi on i n t hi s Ci Ci r cui cui t , and an unr esol ved ved quest i on mor e br oa oad dl y.

See Wayn ayne R. LaFave LaFave,, Sea earr ch and and Sei zur e: A Tr ea eatt i se on

t he Fo Four t h Amendment , § 1. 3( f ) n. 60 ( “I t i s uncl uncl ear whet her t he [ Leo Leon good- f ai t h] r ul e ext ends t o a war r ant ‘ t hat was essen ssent i al l y voi d ab i ni t i o’ becau cause of ‘ t he i ssui ssui ng cou cour t ’ s l ack of j ur i s di di c t i on t o aut hor i z e t he s ea ear c h i n t he f i r s t i nst ance. ce. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bake kerr , 894 F. 2d 1144, 1147 ( 10t h Ci r . 1990) ) .

Thi s Co Cour t hol ds t hat i t does no not .

I n Leon Leon,, t he Su Supr eme Cou Courr t hel d t hat supp suppr essi on was unwar r ant ant ed wher e evi evi dence ence was was obt obt ai ned pur suant suant t o a sear ch [24]


war r ant ant t hat was l at er det er mi ned t o be be un unsupp suppor t ed by pr pr obab obabll e cau cause, se, si nce t he execut cut i ng of f i cer cer s act act ed i n obj ect i vel y r eason sonabl e r el i ance on t he war r ant ’ s va val i di t y. 922.

See 468 U. S. at

I n r eachi chi ng t hi s con concl usi on, t he Supr eme Cour t obser ved ved

t hat “[ r ] easona sonabl e mi nds f r equent l y may di di f f er on t he qu quest i on whet her a par t i cul cul ar af f i davi t est abl i she shes pr pr obabl e cau cause, se, and we have ave t hus concl concl uded t hat t he pr ef er ence ence f or war r ant ant s i s most appr opr i at el y ef ef f ect uat ed by acco accorr di ng gr eat def er ence t o a magi st r at e j udge’ s det er mi nat i on. ”

I d. at 914 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks an and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Leo Leon con cont ai ns no not t he sl i ght est sug suggest i on, however ver , t hat t he s ame def def er ence ence oug ought ht appl appl y when hen magi agi s t r at e j udge udges s det er mi ne t hei r own j ur i sdi sdi ct i on.

I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s co concl usi on

pr esupp supposes t hat t he i ss ui ng magi st r at e j udge was aut aut hor i zed t o i ssue t he cha chal l enged war r ant .

Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Houst on, No.

3: 13- 09- DCR, 2014 WL 25 259085 085 at * 26 n. 14 ( E. D. Te Ten nn. J an. an. 23, 2014) ( wher e a war r ant i s “vo “voi d ab i ni t i o . . . t he [ c] our t never ver r eache ches t he qu quest i on of whet her t he sea sear ch war r ant i s sup suppor t ed by pr obabl e cau cause”) se”) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Mor eover , Leo Leon deal s exp expl i ci t l y wi t h a “sub “subseq sequent l y i nval i dat ed war r ant , ” 468 U. U. S. at 918 ( emphasi s added) , r at her t han a war r ant t hat was vo voi d at t he t i me of i t s i ssua ssuance. ce.

[25]

The l at t er


r ai ses ses qu qual i t at i vel y di di f f er ent con concer cer ns, as sev sever al post - Leo Leon cour cour t s hav have e r ecog ecogni zed. zed.

17

Over t he year year s s i nce Leon Leon,, t he Supr Supr eme Cou Courr t has has expand expanded ed t he go goodod- f ai t h exce excep pt i on t o con cont ext s beyon yond t hose Leo Leon spe speci f i cal cal l y addr essed ssed.

18

None one of t he Supr eme Cour our t ’ s post post - Leon Leon

good- f ai t h cases, cases, however ver , i nvol vol ved ved a war r ant t hat was voi voi d ab i ni t i o, and t her ef or e none di r ect t he con concl usi on t hat t he good-

17

C Co our t s i nt er pr et i ng t he scope scope of Leo Leon have ave r epeat edl y hel d or ackno cknowl edged i n di ct a t hat wher e evi evi dence i s obt obt ai ned pur sua suant t o a war r ant t hat i s vo voi d ab i ni t i o, t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on has no appl i cat cat i on. See, e. g. , St at e v. Wi l son son, 618 N. W. 2d 513, 520 ( S. D. 2000) ( hol di ng t hat good- f ai t h excep xcept i on coul coul d not save evi evi dence ence ob obt ai ned pur suan suant t o war r ant ant i ss ued by s t at a t e j udge ac t i ng out s i de t er r i t or i al j ur i s di di c t i on, s i nc e “[ a] ct i ons by by a pol i ce of f i cer cer can cannot be used sed t o cr eat e j ur i s di ct i on, on, even when hen done done i n good good f ai t h”) ; St at e v. Nunez, unez, 634 A. 2d 1167, 1171 ( R. I . 1993) ( st at i ng i n di ct a t hat Leo Leon good- f ai t h excep cept i on “woul d be i nappl i cab cabl e t o t hi s case case becau cause” i t i nvol vol ved ved a war r ant i ssued ssued by a r et i r ed j udge wi t hout aut hor i t y t o do do so, so, and t hus wa was “ voi voi d ab i ni t i o”) ; Commonweal t h v. Shel t on, 766 S. W. 2d 628, 629- 30 ( Ky. 1989) ( not i ng i n di ct a t hat Leo Leon woul d not be appl i cab cabl e si nce “i n t he case case at at bar , we ar e not con conf r ont ed wi t h a t echn chni cal cal def i ci ency; cy; but r at her a quest i on of j ur i sdi sdi ct i on”) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Vi nni e, 683 F. Supp. 285, 288- 89 ( D. Mass. 1988) ( Ski nner , J . ) ( hol di ng Leo Leon’ s go goodf ai t h excep cept i on i nappl i cab cabl e si nce t he case case i nvol ved not t he “det “det er mi nat i on of what quant um of evi dence con const i t ut es pr pr obabl e cause” cause” bu but r at her “ t he mor e f undament ent al pr obl obl em of a magi agi st r at e j udge udge act i ng wi t hout hout s ubj ubj ect mat t er j ur i s di ct i on” on” ) . 18

Leo Leon, al ong wi t h i t s compani on case, case, Mass achu chuset t s v. Shepp eppar d, 468 U. U. S. 981 ( 1984) , “cont “cont empl at ed t wo ci r cum cumst ances: ances: one i n whi ch a war r ant i s i ss ued and i s s ubsequ sequent l y f ound t o be be unsupp suppor t ed by pr pr obab obabll e cau cause and and t he ot ot her i n whi ch a war r ant ant i s sup suppor t ed by pr obabl e cau cause, se, but i s t echn chni cal cal l y def i ci ent . ” Vi nni e, 683 F. Supp. at 288. [26]


f ai t h excep cept i on ought appl y t o t hi s case case..

19

Thi s Cour t i s awar e

of onl y one f eder al ci r cui cui t cou cour t t o addr ess t he quest i on of whet her Leo Leon’ s go good- f ai t h exce xcept i on appl i es i n t hese ci r cum cumst ances: ces: t he Si xt h Ci r cui cui t .

See Mast er , 614 F. 3d 236;

Uni t ed St at es v. v. Scot cot t , 260 F. 3d 512 ( 6t h Ci r . 2001) .

Scot cot t

i nvol vol ved ved a sea sear ch war r ant i ss ued by a r et i r ed j udge who l acked cked aut hor i t y t o do so.

260 F. 3d at 51 513.

Af t er ho hol di ng t hat such

war r ant was ne necessa cessarr i l y voi d ab i ni t i o, i d. at 515, t he cou cour t con concl uded t hat , “[ d] espi spi t e t he dear t h of case case l aw, we ar e con conf i dent ent t hat Leo Leon di d not con cont empl at e a si t uat i on wher e a

19

The The goo good d- f ai t h excep exceptt i on has bee been n hel d t o ap appl y wher e of f i cer cer s ex execut cut e a war r ant i n r el i ance on exi st i ng l aw. See Davi s v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2419 ( 2011) ( good- f ai t h excep xcept i on pr pr ecl uded sup suppr ess i on of of evi dence ob obt ai ned t hr ough a sear sear ch i nci dent t o ar r est t hat was pr pr oper under bi ndi ng app appel l at e pr eced ecedent ent at t he t i me of t he sear ch but whi ch was l at er hel d t o be unl awf ul ) ; I l l i noi s v. v. Kr ul l , 480 U. S. 340 ( 1987) ( good- f ai t h excep cept i on appl i ed t o a war r ant l ess admi ni st r at i ve sear sear ch con conduct ed pur sua suant t o a st at ut e l at er f ound t o be uncon const i t ut i onal , wher e t he of f i cer cer ’ s r el i ance on t he con const i t ut i onal i t y of t he st at ut e was ob obj ect i vel y r easona sonabl e) . Unl i ke i n t hose cases, cases, her e t her e was no no “i nt er ven veni ng cha change i n t he l aw t hat made t he go good- f ai t h exce xcept i on r el evan vant . ” Uni t ed St at es v. Wur i e, 728 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . The Supr Supr eme Cour our t has al s o appl appl i ed t he good good-- f ai t h except i on i n ci r cum cumst ances ces i nvol vi ng one- of f mi st ake kes s of of f act t hat i mpl i cat cat e t he val i di t y of a war r ant at t he t i me of i t s execu xecutt i on. See Her r i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 555 U. S. 135 ( 2009) ( good- f ai t h exce xcept i on appl i ed t o evi dence i mpr oper l y ob obt ai ned as a r esul sul t of l aw enf or cem cement ’ s ne negl i gent r ecor cor d- ke kee epi ng pr act i ces) ces) ; Ar i zon zona v. v. Evan vans, 514 U. S. 1 ( 1995) ( evi dence sei sei zed zed i n vi ol at i on of t he Fo Fou ur t h Amendment as a r esul sul t of a cl er i cal cal er r or on t he par t of cou cour t per sonn sonnel was cove cover ed by good- f ai t h exce xcept i on and t hus di di d not war r ant sup suppr essi on) . Her e, i n con cont r ast , t he war r ant was voi voi d at i t s i ncep cept i on. [27]


war r ant i s i ssue ssued by a per son son l acki cki ng t he r equi si t e l egal aut hor i t y. ”

I d.

Ni ne year s l at er , t he Si xt h Ci r cui cui t ef f ect i vel y r ever sed sed i t sel sel f i n Mast er , whi ch i nvol ved a war r ant i ssue ssued by a st at e j udge udge t o s ear ch pr oper oper t y out out s i de hi s di s t r i ct , whi ch was unaut aut hor i zed under Ten Tenn nessee l aw.

614 F. 3d at 23 239.

The The cour cour t

hel d t hat t he war r ant ant was i nval val i d f or t he sam same r ea eason son as was t he war r ant i n Scot cot t ,

20

i d. at 240, but t hat t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on

t o t he exc excll usi onar y r ul e ap appl i ed becau cause Sco Scott t ’ s r easoni soni ng was “no “no l onger cl ear l y con consi st ent wi t h cur cur r ent Supr eme Co Cour t doc t r i ne. ”

I d. at at 24 242.

I n par t i c ul ul ar , i t no not ed t hat “ [ t ] he

Supr eme Cour t has ef f ect i vel vel y cr eat ed a bal anci ng t est by r equi r i ng t hat i n or der f or a cou cour t t o sup suppr ess evi evi dence f ol l owi ng t he f i ndi ng of a Fo Fou ur t h Amendment vi ol at i on, ‘ t he benef i t s of det er r ence must out wei gh t he cost cost s. ’ ”

I d. at 243 243

( quot i ng Her r i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 555 U. S. 135, 142 ( 2009) ) . The Mast er cour t r ead t he Supr Supr eme Cour t ’ s r ecent good good-- f ai t h cases cases t oo br oadl y. 21

Thi s Co Cour t i s pe per suad suaded i nst ead by t he

20

Th The di f f er ence bet ween t he i ssuer ssuer of t he war r ant i n Scot cot t and i n Mast er - - namel y, a r et i r ed j udge wi t h “no “no aut hor i t y t o appr ove any war r ant s, ” and and an act i ve j udge wi t h aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue war r ant s wi t hi n hi s di di st r i ct , r espe spect i vel y - - was “i mmat er i al ” f or t he pu pur pose of of det er mi ni ng whet her t he war r ant was va val i d. Mast er , 614 F. 3d at 240. 21

Eve Even n i n Mast er , i t sho shoul d be not ed, t he cou cour t acknow acknowl edg edged t hat t he r ecent ecent Supr eme C Cou ourr t cases add addr essi ess i ng t he [28]


r at i onal e i n Scot cot t and case cases s ap appl yi ng t he hol di ng of t hat deci si on, see see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Neer i ng, 194 F. Supp. 2d 620 ( E. D. Mi ch. ch. 2002) ( war r ant i ssued ssued by an an of f i ci al who was no not pr oper l y ap appoi nt ed and t her ef or e l acked cked i ssui ng aut hor i t y was voi d, and under Scot cot t , t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on di d not appl y) . Nei t her Hudson nor Her r i ng - - bot h of whi ch t he Mast er cou cour t ci t ed i n sup suppor t of i t s con concl usi on t hat Scot cot t ’ s ho hol di ng i s no no l onger t enabl e, see 614 F. 3d at 242 - - r equi r es t he con concl usi on t hat t he go good- f ai t h excep cept i on appl i es t o ev evi dence sei sei zed zed pur sua suant t o a war r ant t hat was voi voi d ab i ni t i o.

22

good- f ai t h excep cept i on “do “do[ ] not di r ect l y over ver r ul e our pr evi ous deci si on i n Scot cot t . ” 614 F. 3d at 24 243. 22

I n Hudson, dson, 547 U. S. 586 ( 2006) , t he Su Supr eme Cou Courr t hel d t hat supp suppr ess i on was no not an appr opr i at e r emedy f or a vi ol at i on of t he kno knock- and- announce r ul e. See i d. at 59 599. I n r eachi chi ng t hi s co conc l us i on, t he pl ur al i t y expl i c i t l y di s t i ngui s he hed t he i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by by t he war r ant r equi r ement and t he k kn nockand- announce r equi r ement . See i d. at 593 593. Wi t h r espect spect t o t he war r ant r equi r ement , i t not ed t hat “[ u] nt i l a val i d war r ant has i ssue ssued, ci t i zen zens ar ar e ent i t l ed t o shi shi el d t hei r per son sons, houses, ses, paper s, and ef f ect s . . . f r om t he gover nment ’ s scr ut i ny[ , ] ” an and t hat “[ e] xcl xcl usi on of t he evi dence obt ai ned by a war r ant l ess sea sear ch vi ndi cat cat es t hat ent ent i t l ement . ” I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and and ci t at i ons om omi t t ed) ( emphasi s ad added) . As no no val val i d war r ant ant was ever ever i ss ued her her e, and and t he gov gover er nment ent doe oes s not ar gue t hat an exce xcept i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement appl i es, excl xcl usi on i s ap a ppr opr i at e. Her r i ng, t oo, i s di di st i ngui sha shabl e. Ther e, l aw enf or cem cement of f i cer cer s exe execut cut ed an ar r est war r ant t hat had been r esci nded. 555 U. S. at 138. The The Supr eme Cour our t hel d t hat si nce t he mi st ak ake e was at at t r i but abl e t o “i sol sol at ed negl i gence at t enuat ed f r om t he ar r est ” - - spe speci f i cal cal l y, a r ecor cor dkeepi ng er r or –- t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e appl i ed. I d. at 137. Al t houg hough h t hat hat case cas e make akes s much of t he connect connect i on bet bet wee een n t he excl usi onar y rul e and t he goal of det er r ence and cul cul pabi l i t y of of [29]


Becau ecause a war r ant t hat was voi voi d at t he ou out set i s aki n t o no no war r ant at al l , case cases s i nvol vi ng t he appl i cat cat i on of t he goodf ai t h exce xcept i on t o evi dence sei zed zed pur sua suant t o a war r ant l ess sea sear ch ar e espe speci al l y i nst r uct i ve.

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Cur zi ,

867 F. 2d 36 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) , t he Fi r st Ci r cui cui t decl i ned t o “r ecog cogni ze[ ze[ ] a good- f ai t h excep cept i on i n r espe spect t o war r ant l ess sea sear che ches. ”

I d. at at 44 44.

23

To hol d t hat t he good- f ai t h excep xcept i on

i s app appl i cab cabl e he her e woul d col col l apse t he di di st i nct i on bet ween a voi dabl e and a voi d war r ant .

But t hi s di st i nct i on i s

meani ngf ul : t he f or mer i nvol ves “j udi ci al er r or , ” such such as “mi sj udgi ng t he suf suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence or t he war r ant

l aw enf or cem cement , see i d. at 141- 43, i t says says not not hi ng about whet her t he same cal cul us oug ought app appl y wher e t her e was neve neverr j ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue a val i d war r ant ant i n t he f i r s t pl ace. 23

Whi l e no case case has di di r ect l y di st ur bed t hi s ho hol di ng, t he Fi r st Ci r cui cui t has si nce hel d t hat t he good- f ai t h excep cept i on may exem xempt f r om excl usi on evi dence sei sei zed pur suan suant t o an an uncon const i t ut i onal war r ant l ess sea sear ch “‘ con conduct ed i n obj ect i vel vel y r eason sonabl e r el i ance on bi ndi ng appel l at e pr eced cedent [ . ] ’ ” Uni t ed St at es v. Spar ks, 711 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Davi s, 131 S. Ct . at 243 2434) . Cases l i ke Spar ks, t hough, ar e r eadi l y di st i ngui sha shabl e: t he of f i cer cer s i n Spar ks wer e ent i t l ed t o r el y on ci r cui cui t pr eced cedent i ndi cat cat i ng t hat t hey cou coul d con conduct t he cha chal l enged sear sear ch wi t hout a war r ant ; by cont cont r ast , her e no bi ndi ng appel l at e pr eced cedent aut hor i zed zed t he of f i cer cer s t o under t ake t he sear sear ch ei t her wi t hout a war r ant or pur suan suant t o on one t hat was voi voi d at t he out set . To det er mi ne whet her t he good- f ai t h exce xcept i on appl i ed i n Spar ks, t he cou cour t asked sked: “what uni ver ver se of of cases can t he pol i ce r el y on? on? And how cl ea earr l y must t hose cases gover n t he cur cur r ent case case f or t hat r el i ance t o be obj ect i vel y r easonab sonabll e?” 711 F. 3d at 64. 64. Such quest i ons ar e whol l y i napposi t e her e. [30]


appl i cat cat i on’ s f ul f i l l ment of t he st at ut or y r equi r ement s[ , ] ” whi l e t he l at t er i nvol ves “j “ j udi c i al aut hor i t y, ” i . e. , a j udge “act “act [ i ng] out si de of t he l aw, out si de of t he aut hor i t y gr gr ant ed t o j udges i n t he f i r st pl ace. ce. ”

St at e v. Hess, 770 N. W. 2d 769,

776 ( Ct . App. Wi s. 2009) ( emphasi s add added) ; cf . Scot cot t , 260 F. 3d at 515 ( “Leo “L eon n pr esupp esupposed t hat t he war r ant ant was i ss ued by a magi st r at e or j udge cl ot hed i n t he pr oper l egal aut hor i t y, def i ni ng t he i ssue ssue as as wh whet her t he ex excl usi onar y r ul e ap appl i ed t o ‘ evi dence obt ai ned by of of f i cer cer s act act i ng i n r eason sonabl e r el i ance on a sear sear ch war r ant ant i ss ued by a det ached ached and and neut eut r al magi agi st r at e bu but ul t i mat el y f ound t o be unsupp suppor t ed by pr obabl e cau cause. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Leo Leon, 468 U. S. at 900) ; St at e v. Vi cker cker s, 964 P. 2d 756, 762 ( Mont . 1998) ( di st i ngui shi shi ng Leo Leon and con concl udi ng t hat “[ i ] f a sea sear ch war r ant i s vo voi d ab i ni t i o, t he i nqui r y st ops an and al l ot her i ssue ssues pe per t ai ni ng t o t he val i di t y of t he sea sear ch war r ant , such such as wh whet her t he pu pur pose of of t he exc excll usi onar y r ul e i s s er ved ved, ar e moot . ”) .

Wer e t he good- f ai t h exce xcept i on t o appl y her e,

cou cour t s wo woul d have t o t ol er at e evi dence obt ai ned when an of f i cer cer subm submi t t ed somet hi ng t hat r easona sonabl y l ooke ked d l i ke a val val i d war r ant appl i cat cat i on, t o som someone who, t o t he of of f i cer cer , appear ed t o ha have aut hor i t y t o appr ove t hat war r ant appl i cat cat i on. F. 3d at 1126 ( Gor such such,, J . , con concur cur r i ng) .

[31]

Cf . Kr ueger , 809

Thi s Co Cour t hol ds t hat


such such an expa xpansi on of t he go good- f ai t h exce xcept i on i s i mpr ovi dent , and and not r equ equi r ed by cur cur r ent ent pr eced ecedent ent .

24

Even ven wer e t he Cour t t o hol d t hat t he good- f ai t h excep xcept i on cou coul d app appl y t o ci r cum cumst ances ces i nvol vol vi ng a sear sear ch pur suan suant t o a war r ant i ssue ssued wi t hout j ur i sdi sdi ct i on, i t woul d decl i ne t o r ul e such such exce xcept i on appl i cab cabl e her e.

Forr one Fo one, i t was no not obj ect i vel y

r eason sonabl e f or l aw enf or cem cement - - par t i cul cul ar l y “a vet er an FBI FBI agent wi t h 19 yea year s of f ede eder al l aw enf or cement expe xper i ence[ ce[ , ] ” Gov’ t ’ s Re Resp. sp. 7- 8 - - t o bel i eve t hat t he NI T War r ant was pr oper l y i ssued ssued con consi der i ng t he pl ai n mandat e of Rul e 41( b) . See Gl over , 736 F. 3d at 516 ( “[ I ] t i s qu qui t e a st r et ch t o l abel t he gover ver nment ’ s act i ons i n seeki seeki ng a war r ant so cl ear l y i n vi ol at i on of Rul e 41 as mot i vat ed by ‘ good f ai t h. ’ ”) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. McKe cKeever ver , 894 F. 2d 712, 717 ( 5t h Ci Ci r . 1990) ( goodf ai t h exce excep pt i on di d not app appl y wher e sher sher i f f “wh “who was t he pr i me mover ver i n obt ai ni ng and execu xecutt i ng t he sea sear ch . . . kne knew bot h t hat

24

Whi l e t he excl usi onar y rul rul e has i t s de det r act or s, see see, e. g. , Akhi khi l Reed Amar , Fo Fou ur t h Amendment Fi r st Pr i nci pl es, 107 Har v. L. Rev. 757, 785- 800 ( 1994) ( ar gui ng t hat sup suppr essi on i s an “ awkwar d and and embar bar r ass i ng r emedy” edy” t hat hat i s uns uns uppo upporr t ed by t he t ext of t he Fo Fou ur t h Amendment ) , “wh “when a cr i mi nal con convi ct i on i s pr edi cat cat ed on a vi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on’ s cri mi nal pr oced ocedur e r equ equi r ement ent s, i ncl udi ng t he Fou Four t h Am Amend endment ent , t he con convi ct i on wor ks an an ongoi ng depr i vat vat i on of l i ber t y wi t hout due pr ocess cess , ” Ri Ri cha char d M. Re, The Due Pr Pr ocess cess Excl usi onar y Ru Rul e, 127 Har v. L. Rev. 1885, 1887 ( 2014) ; see see al al so Ca Car ol S. St ei ke kerr , Secon cond Thought s Ab About Fi r st Pr i nci pl es, 107 Har v. L. Rev. 820, 848- 852 ( 1994) . [32]


he had t o obt ai n a war r ant f r om a cou cour t of r ecor cor d . . . and t hat [ t he i ssui ssui ng j udge] was no not a j udge of a cou cour t of r ecor cor d. ”) .

25

Mor eo eove verr , even even anal anal yzed under Her r i ng, t he cond conduct at i ss ue her e can can be descr i bed as “s yst emi c er er r or or r eckl ess di sr egar d of

25

I n i t s oral ar gument opposi ng t hi s mot i on, El ec. Cl er k’ s Not es, ECF No No. 62, t he go gover ver nment i ndi cat cat ed t hat t he pa par t i cul cul ar of f i cer cer s exe execut cut i ng t he sear sear ch can cannot be cha char ged wi t h t he kno knowl edge t hat t he war r ant was i ssued ssued i n vi ol at i on of t he Fed Fe der al Magi st r at es Act Act and Rul e 41( b) . But i t woul d be i ncon congr uous t o vi ew t hese of f i cer cer s’ con conduct i n i sol sol at i on. As Pr of essor Amst er dam ar t i cul cul at ed: [ S] ur el y i t i s un unr eal t o t r eat t he of f endi ng of f i c er er as a pr pr i vat vat e mal ef act or who j ust happens t o r ecei cei ve a gover over nment ent paych aycheck eck.. I t i s t he gover over nment ent t hat send sends hi m out on t he st r eet s wi wi t h t he j ob of r epr essi ng cr i me and of gat her i ng cr i mi nal evi dence i n or der t o r epr ess i t . I t i s t he gover nment t hat mot i vat es hi m t o con conduct sear sear che ches and and sei zur zur es as as a par t of hi s j ob, empower s hi hi m and equi ps hi hi m t o con conduct t hem. I f i t al so r ecei cei ves ves t he pr oduct s of t hose sea sear che ches and and sei sei zur zur es wi t hout r egar d t o t hei r con const i t ut i onal i t y and uses t hem as t he mea ean ns of convi convi ct i ng peo eop pl e whom t he of f i cer cer con concei cei ves i t t o be hi s j ob t o get con convi ct ed, i t i s no not mer el y t ol er at i ng but i nduci ng uncon const i t ut i onal sea sear che ches an and sei sei zur zur es. Ant hony hony G. Ams t er dam dam, Per s pect pect i ves on t he Four Four t h Am Amendm endment ent , 58 Mi nn. L. Rev. 349, 432 ( 1974) . [33]


con const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s, ” 26 55 555 U. S. at 147, and and t he Cou Courr t t hus con concl udes t hat sup suppr essi on i s ap appr opr i at e. 4.

27

Policy Ramifications

Not wi t hst andi ng t he Cour t ’ s do doct r i nal anal ysi s - - whi ch has now con concl uded - - t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul of t he t hor ny pr act i cal cal quest i ons t hi s mot i on r ai ses.

The gover ver nment asser t s t hat t o

hol d t hat t he magi st r at e j udge l acked cked aut hor i t y t o i ssue t he NI T

26

The The Su Supr eme Cou Courr t doe oes s not def i ne “sys t emi c neg negl i gence, ence, ” Her r i ng, 555 U. S. at 144, or “syst emi c er er r or , ” i d. at 147, and t he f or mer , at l east , i s app appar ent l y a new t er m i n t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s l exi con con, see Wayne yne R. R. Laf Laf ave, ve, The Sm Smel l of Her r i ng: A Cr i t i que of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s Lat Lat est Assaul ssaul t on t he Excl xcl usi onar y Rul e, 99 J . Cr i m. L. & Cr i mi nol ogy 757, 784 ( 2009) . I t i s di di f f i cul cul t t o ascer scer t ai n t he f r equency wi t h whi ch si mi l ar war r ant s - - i . e. , war r ant s t o co conduct r emot e sea sear che ches of pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out si de a magi st r at e j udge’ s j udi ci al di st r i ct - - ar e gr ant ed, si nce t hese war r ant s ar ar e t ypi cal cal l y i ssue ssued and r emai n under seal seal . See Owsl ey, supr supr a not e 4, at 4- 5. Nonet hel es s , i t i s cl c l ear t o t he Cour t t hat t hi s i s f ar f r om t he sol e i nst ance ance i n whi ch t he gover over nment ent has sou s oug ght and and obt obt ai ned ned an NI T war r ant . See i d. ( l i st i ng case cases s i nvol vi ng NI T war r ant s or or s i mi l ar ) ; Gov’ t ’ s Re Res p. p. 23. 27

T Th he Cour our t acknow acknowl edg edges t hat supp suppr essi ess i on i s an ext ext r eme r emedy, and con consequ sequent l y i t con consi der ed whet her , on t hi s occasi occasi on - - but never ver agai n under t hese ci r cum cumst ances - - t he evi dence at i ssue ought be l et i n under t he good- f ai t h exce xcept i on. See St at e v. Har dy, dy, No. 16964, 1998 WL 54 543368, at * 6- 7 ( Ct . App. Ohi o Au Aug. 28, 1998) ( Fa Faii n, J . , con concur cur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( con concl udi ng t hat good- f ai t h exce xcept i on sho shoul d appl y t o e evi vi dence ob obt ai ned pur sua suant t o a war r ant i ssue ssued wi t hout pr oper j ur i sdi sdi ct i on, but not i ng t hat “[ o] nce we al l ow t i me f or r eason sonabl e pol i ce of f i cer cer s wi t hi n t hi s j ur i sdi sdi ct i on t o becom come acqu cquai nt ed wi t h t he t er r i t or i al l i mi t s up upon a magi st r at e j udge' s au aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue sear sear ch war r ant s, however ver , cl ai ms of good- f ai t h exce xcept i ons t o t he war r ant r equi r ement ar e l i ke kell y t o be unavai l i ng. ”) . Upon f ur t her del i ber at i on, however , t he Co Cour t con concl uded t hat t o ho hol d t hat Leo Leon’ s go good- f ai t h excep xcept i on appl i es her her e, wher e t her e ne never ver exi st ed a val i d war r ant , woul d st r et ch t hat excep cept i on t oo f ar . [34]


War r ant , and acco accorr di ngl y t o sup suppr ess t he evi evi dence ob obt ai ned pur sua suant t her et o, woul d cr eat e “an i nsur sur mount abl e l egal bar r i er ” t o l aw enf or cem cement ef f or t s i n t hi s r eal m.


The The Cour t i s unm unmoved by t he gover gover nment ent ’ s ar gum gument ent f or t wo r eason sons. Fi r s t , i t c an annot f ai r l y be s ai ai d t hat t he l egal bar r i er t o obt ai ni ng t hi s t ype of NI T War r ant f r om a magi st r at e j udge i s “i nsur moun ount abl abl e, ” becau ecause t he gov gover er nment ent i t sel f has come up up wi t h a way of of sur mount i ng i t - - namel y, t o cha change Ru Rul e 41 41( b) , see supr supr a not e 13. Secon cond, i t does no not f ol l ow f r om t hi s op opi ni on t hat t her e was no way f or t he gov gover er nment ent t o hav have e ob obt ai ned t he NI NI T War r ant ant . Sect i on 636( a) and Rul e 41( b) l i mi t t he t er r i t or i al scop scope of magi st r at e j udges - - t hey say say no not hi ng about t he aut hor i t y of of di st r i ct j udges t o i ssue ssue war r ant s t o sea sear ch pr oper t y l ocat cat ed out s i de t hei r j udi c i al di s t r i c t s .

I ndeed, t he quot at i on f r om

Uni t ed St at es v. Vi l l egas, 899 F. 2d 1324 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) , i ncl uded i n t he gover ver nment ’ s ow own br i ef , i s r evea veal i ng: “Ru “Rul e 41 does no not def i ne t he ext ent of t he cou cour t ’ s pow power t o i ssue a sear sear ch war r ant ant . . . . Gi ven ven t he Fo Fou ur t h Amend endment ent ’ s war war r ant ant r equi r ement s and and assumi ng no no st at ut or y pr pr ohi bi t i on, t he cou cour t s must be deem deemed t o have have i nher nher ent ent pow power t o i s s ue a war r ant ant when t he r equ equi r ement ent s of of t hat Amend endment ent ar e met . ” 21 ( quot i ng Vi l l egas, 899 F. 2d at 1334) . [35]

Gov’ ov’ t ’ s Resp. Resp. 20-

Wi t h r espe spect t o


di st r i ct j udges, nei t her Rul e 41( b) nor Sect i on 636( a) of t he Feder al Magi st r at es Act Act r est r i ct s t hei r i nher ent aut hor i t y t o i ss ue war r ant ant s con consi st ent ent wi t h t he Fo Fou ur t h Amend endment ent .

See

Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1125 n. 6 ( not i ng t hat anal ysi s of a magi st r at e j udge’ s l ack of st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue war r ant s t o sea sear ch out si de hi s di di st r i ct has no no bear i ng on “t he st at ut or y aut hor i t i es of of a di st r i ct j udge t o i ssue ssue a war r ant f or an out of - di s t r i c t s ea ear c h[ h[ , ] ” an and poi nt i ng out t hat “ [ u] nl i ke magi s t r at es , t he j ur i s di di c t i on of di s t r i c t c our t s i s us us ua ual l y def i ned by sub subj ect mat t er and par t i es r at her t han st r i ct l y by by geogr aphy. ”) ; cf . Mat t er of Appl i cat cat i on and Af f i davi t f or a Sear ch War r ant , 923 F. 2d 324, 326 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) ( con cont r ast i ng a di st r i ct j udge’ s “i nher ent power ” wi t h a magi st r at e’ s po power , whi ch i s ei ei t her del egat ed by a di st r i ct j udge or expr essl y pr ovi ded by st at ut e) .

28

28

Su Sur pr i si ngl y, a nu number of cou cour t s have have appar ent l y under st ood Rul e 41( b) t o appl y t o di st r i ct j udges. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Gol son, son, 743 F. 3d 44, 51 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) ( “Ru “Rul e 41( b) gr ant s t he aut hor i t y t o i ssue ssue sea sear ch war r ant s t o f eder al j udge udges s and and j udge udges s of s t at e cour t s of r ecor d. ” ) ; Gl over , 736 736 F. 3d at 515 ( con concl udi ng t hat a war r ant i ssue ssued by a di st r i ct j udge t o sea sear ch pr oper t y out si de t hat j udge’ s di di st r i ct vi ol at ed Rul e 41( b) ( 2) ) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Kr awi ec, 627 F. 2d 577, 580 ( 1st Ci r . 1980) ( i ndi cat cat i ng t hat al l “f eder al war r ant s” ar ar e r equi r ed t o com compl y wi t h Rul e 41) . On i t s f ace, ce, however ver , Rul e 41( b) appl i es onl onl y t o “a magi st r at e j udge” and and “a j udge of of a st at e cou cour t of r ecor cor d. ” The aut hor i t y of di st r i ct j udges to i ssue ssue war r ant s ar i ses el el sewher e, see Vi l l egas, 899 F. 2d at 1334; 18 U. S. C. § 31 3102, and di st r i ct j udges ar ar e not sub subj ect t o t he l i mi t at i ons s et et f or t h i n Rul e 41( b) . [36]


The magi agi s t r at e j udge udge who i s s ued ued t hi s war r ant ant s i t s pr i mar i l y i n Al exandr i a, Vi Vi r gi ni a.

See NI T War r ant .

Fou Fo ur di st r i ct j udges

and t hr ee sen seni or j udges si t r out i nel y i n t hat cou cour t house. se.

See

Al exandr i a Co Cour t house, se, Uni t ed St at es Di Di st r i ct Cour t East er n Di s t r i c t of Vi r gi ni a, ht t p: / / www. vaed. us co cour t s . gov/ l oc at at i ons / al e. ht m ( l ast vi si t ed Apr . 20, 2016) .

Her e, t he gover nment had

al r eady i nvol ved one of t hose di st r i ct j udges i n i t s i nves t i gat i on, al bei t t o obt ai n t he Ti t l e I I I war r ant .

See

Ti t l e I I I War r ant ant . Of cour cour se, wer e t he gov gover er nment ent t o pr esent esent i t s NI NI T War r ant ant appl i cat cat i on t o a di st r i ct j udge, i t woul d st i l l have t o meet t he r equ equi r ement ent s of t he Fou Four t h Am Amend endment ent , whi ch gu guar ant ant ee ees s t hat “no War r ant s shal shal l i ss ue, but upon pr pr obabl e cau cause, supp suppor t ed by by Oa Oat h or af f i r mat i on, and par t i cul cul ar l y descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear sear che ched. ”

U. S. Const . amend. I V.

Of s peci al con concer cer n her e i s

t he pa par t i cul cul ar i t y r equi r ement , si nce, ce, as t he go gover nment poi nt s out , “t he def endant ’ s use use of of t he Tor hi dden ser vi ce made i t i mpossi bl e f or i nvest i gat or s t o know what ot her di st r i ct s, i f any, t he execu xecutt i on of t he war r ant woul d t ake pl ace i n, ” Go Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 20. 20.

29

Whi l e t hi s Cou Courr t nee eed d not deci deci de whet her t he

29

I ndee eed, d, obj obj ect or s t o t he pr oposed oposed amend endment ent t o Ru Rul e 41( b) , see supr supr a no not e 13 13, have ar gued t hat a war r ant t hat per mi t t ed l aw enf enf or cement ent t o r emot el y sear ch com comput er s at unknow known l ocat ocat i ons ons wou woull d vi ol at e t he Fou Four t h Amend endment ent ’ s par t i cul cul ar i t y r equi r ement . See, e. g. , Wr i t t en St at ement of t he [37]


par t i cul cul ar i t y r equi r ement was met her e, i t not es t hat despi spi t e t he di f f i cul cul t y hi ghl i ght ed by t he gover nment , at l east t wo cou cour t s have have det er mi ned t hat t hi s pr eci se war r ant was suf suf f i ci ent l y par t i cul cul ar t o pass con const i t ut i onal must er .

See

Uni t ed St at es v. Epi ch, ch, No. 15- CR- 163- PP, PP, 2016 WL 95 953269, at *2 ( E. D. Wi s. Mar . 14, 2016) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi cha chaud, No. 3: 15cr - 05351- RJ B, 2016 WL 337 337263 at at *4- *5 ( W. D. Wash. ash. J an. an. 28, 2016) .

But cf . I n r e War r ant t o Sear ch a Tar get Comput er at

Pr emi ses Unknow known, 958 F. Sup Supp. 2d at at 755- 58 ( war r ant ant t o “ s ur ur r ept i t i ous l y i ns t al l [ ] s of of t war e des i gned . . . t o ext r ac t cer cer t ai n st or ed el el ect r oni c r ecor cor ds” f r om “an unkno known co comput er at an unknow known l ocat ocat i on” on” di d not sat i sf y Fou Four t h Amend endment ent par t i cul cul ar i t y r equi r ement ) . IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on t he f or egoi ng anal ysi s, t he Co Cour t con concl udes t hat t he NI T War r ant was i ss ued wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on and t hus was was voi d ab i ni t i o.

I t f ol l ows t hat t he r esul sul t i ng sea sear ch was

con conduct ed as t hough t her e wer e no war r ant at al l .

Si nce

war r ant l ess sear sear che ches ar e pr pr esumpt i vel vel y un unr easona sonabl e, and t he good- f ai t h exce xcept i on i s i nappl i cab cabl e, t he evi dence must be excl xcl uded.

Accor ccor di ngl y, Levi Levi n’ s mot i on t o sup suppr ess, ECF No. 44,

i s GR GRANTED.

Cent ent er f or Democr acy & Te Tech chn nol ogy ogy Bef Bef or e t he J udi ci al Conf onf er ence ence Advi sor y Co Commi t t ee on on Cr Cr i mi nal Rul es 2, Oct . 24, 2014. [38]


SO ORDERED.

/ s/ Wi l l i am G. Young WI LLI LL I AM G. YOUNG DI STRI STRI CT J UDGE

[39]

Order on Motion to Suppress in Playpen Case

Recommend Documents