Order on Motion to Suppress in Playpen Case

8/18/2019 Order on Motion to Suppress in Playpen Case

1/39

[1]

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTDI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, )

))) CRI MI NAL ACTI ON

v. ) NO. 15- 10271- WGY)

ALEX LEVI N, ))

Def endant . ))

YOUNG, D. J . Apr i l 20, 2016

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Al ex Levi n i s char ged wi t h possessi on of chi l d por nogr aphy.

Compl . 1, ECF No. 1. The government obt ai ned evi dence of

Levi n’ s al l eged cri me i n t hr ee st eps. Fi r st , i t sei zed cont r ol

of a websi t e t hat di st r i but ed t he i l l i ci t mat er i al at i ssue

( “Websi t e A”) . Next , i t obt ai ned a ser i es of sear ch war r ant s

t hat al l owed t he gover nment t o i dent i f y i ndi vi dual users who

were access i ng cont ent on Websi t e A. One of t hese warr ant s

i nvol ved the depl oyment of a Net wor k I nvest i gat i ve Techni que

( t he “NI T War r ant ”) . Fi nal l y, t he gover nment sear ched1 t he

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

1 The gover nment has wai ved any ar gument t hat i t si nvest i gat i ve conduct her e di d not amount t o a sear ch by f ai l i ngt o r ai se t hi s ar gument i n i t s memorandum. The Cour t t heref oreassumes t hat Levi n had a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy as t o

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


2/39

[2]

Levi n has moved t o suppr ess t he evi dence obt ai ned as a

r esul t of t he i ssuance of t he NI T War r ant , ar gui ng t hat t he NI T

War r ant i s voi d f or want of j ur i sdi ct i on under t he Feder al

Magi st r at es Act , 28 U. S. C. § 636( a) , and addi t i onal l y t hat i t

vi ol at ed Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 41( b) . Def . ’ s Mot .

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

government cont ends t hat t he NI T Warr ant was val i d and t hat , i n

any event , suppr essi on i s not an appr opr i ate r emedy on t hese

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

ECF No. 60.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Thi s case i nvol ves a f ar - r eachi ng and hi ghl y publ i ci zed

i nvest i gat i on conduct ed by t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on

i n ear l y 2015 t o pol i ce chi l d por nogr aphy. 2 The i nvest i gat i on

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

t he i nf or mat i on obt ai ned thr ough t he execut i on of t he var i ouswar r ant s.

2 For cover age of t hi s i nvest i gat i on, see, f or exampl e,El l en Nakashi ma, Thi s i s How t he Government i s Catchi ng Peopl eWho Use Chi l d Por n Si t es, Wash. Post , J an 21, 2016,ht t ps: / / www. washi ngt onpost . com/ wor l d/ nat i onal - secur i t y/ how- t he-gover nment - i s- usi ng- mal war e- t o- ensnar e- chi l d- por n-user s/ 2016/ 01/ 21/ f b8ab5f 8- bec0- 11e5- 83d4-42e3bceea902_st ory. ht ml ; Mary- Ann Russon, FBI Cr ack Tor andCat ch 1, 500 Vi si t or s t o Bi ggest Chi l d Por nogr aphy Websi t e on t heDar k Web, I nt ’ l Bus. Ti mes, J an. 6, 2016,ht t p: / / www. i bt i mes. co. uk/ f bi - crack- t or - cat ch- 1500- vi si t or s-bi ggest - chi l d- por nogr aphy- websi t e- dar k- web- 1536417.



3/39

[3]

t he “Tor ” net wor k - - sof t war e desi gned t o pr eserve users’

anonymi t y by maski ng thei r I P addr esses. 3 See Def . ’ s Mot . , Ex.

3, Af f . Supp. Appl i cat i on Sear ch War r ant ( “Af f . Supp. NI T

War r ant ”) 10- 12, ECF No. 44- 3.

As an i ni t i al st ep i n t hei r i nvest i gat i on, FBI agent s

sei zed cont r ol of Websi t e A i n Febr uar y 2015. See i d. at 21- 23.

Rat her t han i mmedi at el y shut t i ng i t down, agent s opt ed t o run

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 e - – users of Websi t e A. See i d. at 23. To do t hi s

3 “Tor , ” whi ch st ands f or “The Oni on Rout er , ” i s “t he mai nbr owser peopl e use to access” t he “Dar knet ” - - “a speci f i c par tof t h[ e] hi dden Web where you can operate i n t otal anonymi 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, 2014, ht t p: / / www. npr . or g/ sect i ons/ al l t echconsi der ed/

2014/ 05/ 25/ 315821415/ goi ng- dar k- t he- i nt er net - behi nd- t he-i nt er net . Tor i t sel f i s l awf ul and has var i ous l egi t i mat e uses.See i d. I ndeed, i t was devel oped by t he Uni t ed St at es Navy,whi ch cont i nues t o use i t “as a means of communi cat i ng wi t hspi es and i nf or mant s[ . ] ” J ohn Lanchest er , When Bi t coi n Gr owsUp, 28 London R. Books No. 8, ht t p: / / www. l r b. co. uk/ v38/ n08/ j ohn-l anchest er / when- bi t coi n- gr owsup. Tor has, however , pr oduceddi f f i cul t i es f or l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s, “especi al l y t hosepur sui ng chi l d por nogr aphy, I nt er net f r aud and bl ack mar ket s, ”si nce i t al l ows cr i mi nal s t o evade det ect i on. Mar t i n Kast e,When a Dark Web Vol unt eer Get s Rai ded by t he Pol i ce, Nat ’ l Pub.Radi o, Apr i l 4, 2016, ht t p: / / www. npr . or g/ sect i ons/ al l t echconsi der ed/ 2016/ 04/ 04/ 4729 92023/ when- a- dar k- web- vol unt eer - get s- r ai ded-by- t he- pol i ce; see al so Lanchest er , 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 sand paedos” and not i ng t hat i t “gi ves anonymi t y and geogr aphi calunl ocat abi l i t y t o al l i t s user s”). At t he same t i me, i t s l egalusers have r ai sed concer ns about t he pr i vacy i mpl i cat i ons ofgovernment “st i ng” operat i ons on t he Tor net work. See Kast e,supr a.



4/39

[4]

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

at 23- 24.

To t hat end, t he gover nment sought and obt ai ned a ser i es of

war r ant s. Fi r st , on Febr uar y 20, 2015, t he gover nment pr ocur ed

an or der pur suant t o Ti t l e I I I f r om a di st r i ct 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 communi cat i ons bet ween Websi t e A users. Def . ’ s Mot . ,

Ex. 2 ( “Ti t l e I I I War r ant ”) , ECF No. 44- 2. Second, al so on t hat

dat e, t he gover nment obt ai ned a war r ant f r om a magi st r at e j udge

i n t he 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 i gat i ve Techni que ( “NI T”) t hat woul d al l ow t he gover nment

cover t l y t o t r ansmi t comput er code t o Websi t e A users. 4 NI T

Warr ant , ECF No. 44- 3. Thi s comput er code t hen generated a

communi cat i on f r om t hose user s’ comput ers t o t he government -

oper at ed ser ver 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 s’ I P addr esses. 5 See Af f . Supp. NI T War r ant

24- 26.

4 For a di scussi on of t he gover nment ’ s r ecent use of t heset ypes of warr ant s, see Br i an L. Owsl ey, Beware of GovernmentAgent s Bear i ng Tr oj an Hor ses, 48 Akron L. Rev. 315 (2015) .

5 The af f i davi t t he gover nment submi t t ed i n suppor t of i t sappl i cat i on f or t he NI T War r ant descr i bes t hi s pr ocess:

I n t he nor mal cour se of oper at i on, websi t es sendcont ent t o vi si t or s. A user ’ s comput er downl oads t hatcont ent and uses i t t o di spl ay web pages on t he user ’ scomput er . Under t he NI T aut hor i zed by t hi s war r ant ,



5/39

[5]

Thr ough t he use of t he NI T, gover nment agent s det er mi ned

t hat a Websi t e A user cal l ed “Manakaral upa” had accessed sever al

i mages of chi l d pornogr aphy i n ear l y March 2015, and t hey t r aced

t he I P addr ess of t hat user t o Levi n’ s home addr ess i n Nor wood,

Massachuset t s. Def . ’ s Mot . , Ex. 1 ( “Resi dent i al War r ant ”) , Af f .

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

[ Websi t e A] , whi ch wi l l be l ocat ed . . . i n t heEast er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, woul d augment t hat

cont ent wi t h addi t i onal comput er i nst r uct i ons. When auser ’ s comput er successf ul l y downl oads t hosei nstr uct i ons f r om [ Websi t e A] . . . t he i nstr uct i ons,whi ch compr i se t he NI T, are desi gned t o cause t heuser ’ s ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er t o t r ansmi t cer t ai ni nf ormat i on t o a comput er cont r ol l ed by or known t ot he government .

Af f . Supp. NI T War r ant 24. The par t i cul ar i nf or mat i on sei zedpur suant t o t he NI T War r ant i ncl uded:

1. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er ’ s act ual I P addr ess, andt he date and t i me t hat t he NI T determi nes what t hat I Paddr ess i s;2. a uni que i dent i f i er gener at ed by t he NI T ( e. g. , aser i es of number s, l et t er s, and/ or speci al char act er s)t o di st i ngui sh dat a f r om t hat of ot her ‘ acti vat i ng’comput er s, t hat wi l l be sent wi t h and col l ect ed by theNI T;3. t he t ype of oper at i ng syst em r unni ng on t hecomput er , i ncl udi ng t ype ( e. g. , Wi ndows) , ver si on( e. g. , Wi ndows 7) , and ar chi t ect ur e ( e. g. , x 86) ;4. i nf ormat i on about whether t he NI T has al r eady beendel i ver ed t o t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er ;5. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er ’ s Host Name;6. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er ’ s act i ve oper at i ng syst emuser name; and7. t he ‘ act i vat i ng’ comput er ’ s medi a access cont r ol( ‘ MAC’ ) addr ess[ . ]

NI T War r ant , At t ach. B ( I nf or mat i on t o be Sei zed) .



6/39

[6]

Warr ant ”) 11- 12, ECF No. 44- 1. On August 11, 2015, l aw

enf or cement of f i ci al s obt ai ned a t hi r d and f i nal war r ant ( t he

“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 sear ch Levi n’ s home. See Resi dent i al War r ant .

Agent s execut ed t he Resi dent i al Warr ant on August 12, 2015, and

i n t hei r sear ch of Levi n’ s comput er , i dent i f i ed ei ght medi a

f i l es al l egedl y cont ai ni ng chi l d por nogr aphy. See Compl . , Ex.

2, Af f . Supp. Appl i cat i on Cr i mi nal Compl . ¶ 7, ECF No. 1- 2.

Levi n was subsequent l y i ndi ct ed on one count of possessi on

of chi l d por nogr aphy, 18 U. S. C. § 2252A( a) ( 5) ( B) . I ndi ct ment ,

ECF No. 8. He has si nce moved t o suppr ess al l evi dence sei zed

pur suant t o t he NI T War r ant and the Resi dent 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 n’ s mot i on under advi sement . See El ec. Cl er k’ s Not es, ECF

No. 62.

III. ANALYSIS

I n suppor t of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess, Levi n 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 t he

i ssui ng magi st r at e j udge’ s aut hor i t y, 7 and f ur t her t hat t he

6 The government does not cont est Levi n’ s ar gument t hatabsent t he NI T Warr ant , i t woul d not have had pr obabl e cause t osuppor t i t s Resi dent i al War r ant appl i cat i on, see Def . ’ s Mot . 14.For t he sake of si mpl i ci t y, t he Cour t uses t he phr ase “evi dencesei zed pur suant t o t he NI T War r ant ” t o i ncl ude evi dence sei zedpur suant t o t he Resi dent i al War r ant because al l of t hat evi dencei s der i vat i ve of t he NI T War r ant .



7/39

[7]

evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o t he NI T Warr ant must be suppr essed

i n l i ght of l aw enf or cement agent s’ del i ber at e di sr egar d f or t he

appl i cabl e r ul es and t he pr ej udi ce Levi n suf f er ed as a

consequence. See Def . ’ s Mot . 6- 7. The government r ef ut es each

of t hese ar gument s, and addi t i onal l y ar gues t hat t he good- f ai t h

except i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e r ender s suppr essi on

i nappr opr i at e. See Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 1.

A. Magistrate Judge’s Authority Under the Federal

Magistrates Act and Rule 41(b)

Levi n ar gues t hat t he i ssuance of t he NI T War r ant r an af oul

of bot h Sect i on 636( a) of t he Feder al Magi st r at es Act and Rul e

41( b) of t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e. See Def . ’ s

Mot . 5- 7, 12. The conduct under l yi ng each of t hese al l eged

vi ol at i ons i s i dent i cal : t he magi st r at e j udge’ s i ssuance of a

war r ant t o sear ch pr oper t y l ocat ed out si de of her j udi ci al

7 A mor e pr eci se char act er i zat i on of Levi n’ s chal l enge woul dbe that t he magi st r ate j udge who i ssued t he NI T Warr ant had noaut hor i t y t o do so under t he rel evant st at ut or y f r amewor k andf eder al r ul es - - not t hat t he i ssuance of t he war r ant “vi ol at ed”t hese pr ovi si ons, by, f or exampl e, f ai l i ng t o compl y wi t hpr ocedur al r equi r ement s. I n t he Cour t ’ s vi ew, t hi s di st i nct i oni s meani ngf ul , see i nf r a Par t I I I ( B) ( 1) , t hough i t i s one t hatnei t her t he par t i es nor ot her cour t s eval uat i ng si mi l archal l enges seem t o appr eci at e, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.Mi chaud, No. 3: 15- cr - 05351- RJ B, 2016 WL 337263 at *5- *7 ( W. D.Wash. J an. 28, 2016) ( di scussi ng whet her t he NI T War r ant“vi ol at es” Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 41( b) ) . I n t hei nt er est of consi st ency wi t h t he par t i es’ br i ef i ngs and pr i orcasel aw, however , t he Cour t cont i nues t he t r adi t i on of r ef er r i ngt o act i ons by a magi st r at e j udge t hat f al l out si de t he scope ofher aut hor i t y as “vi ol at i ons” of t he pr ovi si ons t hat conf er suchaut hor i t y.



8/39

[8]

di st r i ct . See i d. Mor eover , because Sect i on 636( a) expr essl y

i ncor por at es any aut hor i t i es gr ant ed t o magi st r at e j udges by t he

Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, see i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 1) ,

t he Cour t ’ s anal yses of whet her t he NI T War r ant was st at ut or i l y

permi ss i bl e and whether i t was al l owed under Rul e 41( b) are

necessar i l y i nt er t wi ned.

1. Federal Magistrates Act

Sect i on 636( a) of t he Feder al Magi st r at es Act est abl i shes

“j ur i sdi ct i onal l i mi t at i ons on t he power of magi st r at e

j udges[ . ] ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d 1109, 1122 ( 10t h

Ci r . 2015) ( Gor such, J . , concur 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 vi ng under t hi schapt er shal l have wi t hi n t he di st r i ct i n whi ch sessi onsar e hel d by t he cour t t hat appoi nt ed the magi st r at e j udge,at ot her pl aces wher e that cour t may f unct i on, and

el sewher e as aut hor i zed by l aw- -

( 1) al l power s and dut i es conf er r ed or i mposed . . .by l aw or by the Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e[ . ]

28 U. S. C. § 636( a) . Levi n ar gues that t he magi st r at e j udge’ s

i ssuance of a war r ant t o sear ch pr oper t y out si de of her j udi ci al

di str i ct vi ol at ed t he t er r i t or i al r estr i ct i ons pr ovi ded i n t he

f i r st par agr aph of Sect i on 636( a) . Def . ’ s Mot . 12. I n ot her

words, because t he NI T War r ant appr oved a sear ch of pr oper t y

out si de t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a ( “t he di st r i ct i n whi ch

sessi ons ar e hel d by t he cour t t hat appoi nt ed t he magi st r at e”) ,



9/39

[9]

and nei t her of t he ot her cl auses i n t he f i r st par agr aph of

Sect i on 636( a) appl i es, Levi n cont ends t hat t he magi st r at e j udge

l acked j ur i sdi ct i on t o i ssue i t . See i d. The gover nment , f or

i t s par t , not es t hat Levi n does not meani ngf ul l y di st i ngui sh

between t he r equi r ement s of t he st atut e and of Rul e 41( b) , and

advances t he same ar gument s t o suppor t t he magi st r ate j udge’ s

aut hor i t y t o i ssue t he NI T War r ant under Sect i on 636( a) and

under Rul e 41( b) . Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 21.

As di scussed i n mor e det ai l i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 2) ( i ) , t he

Cour t i s per suaded by Levi n’ s ar gument t hat t he NI T Warr ant

i ndeed pur por t ed t o aut hor i ze a sear ch of pr oper t y l ocat ed

out si de t he di st r i ct wher e t he i ssui ng magi st r at e j udge sat .

The magi st r at e j udge had no j ur i sdi ct i on t o i ssue such a war r ant

under t he f i r st par agr aph of Sect i on 636( a) . The Cour t al so

concl udes t hat Sect i on 636( a) ( 1) i s i napposi t e because Rul e

41( b) di d not 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 Levi n chal l enges her e, see i nf r a Par t I I I ( A) ( 2) ,

and t he gover nment poi nt s t o no ot her “l aw or . . . Rul e[ ] of

Cr i mi nal Procedur e” on whi ch t he magi st r ate j udge coul d have

based i t s j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o Sect i on 636( a) ( 1) , see i nf r a

not e 11. Consequent l y, t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he Feder al

Magi st r at es Act di d not aut hor i ze t he magi st r at e j udge t o i ssue

t he NI T War r ant her e.

2. Rule 41(b)



10/39

[10]

Rul e 41( b) , t i t l ed “Aut hor i t y t o I ssue a War r ant , ”

pr ovi des as f ol l ows:

At t he r equest of a f eder al l aw enf or cement of f i cer or

an at t orney f or t he government :

( 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 easonabl y avai l abl e, a j udge of ast at e cour t of r ecor d i n t he di st r i ct - - has aut hor i t yt o i ssue a war r ant t o sear ch f or and sei ze a per son orpr oper t y l ocat 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 cthas aut hor i t y to i ssue a war r ant f or a per son orpr oper t y out si de t he di st r i ct i f t he per son orpr oper t y i s l ocat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct when t hewar r ant i s i ssued but mi ght move or be moved out si det he di st r i ct bef or e t he war r ant i s execut ed;

( 3) a magi st r at e j udge - - i n an i nvest i gat i on ofdomest i c t er r or i sm or i nt er nat i onal t er r or i sm - - wi t haut hor i t y i n any di st r i ct i n whi ch acti vi t i es r el at edt o t he t er r or i sm may have occur r ed has aut hor i t y toi ssue a war r ant f or a per son or pr oper t y wi t hi n orout s i de t hat di s tr i ct ;

( 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 aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant t o i nst al l wi t hi n t hedi st r i ct a t r acki ng devi ce; t he war r ant may aut hor i zeuse of t he devi ce t o t r ack the movement of a person orpr oper t y l ocat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct , out si de t hedi st r i ct, or bot h; and

( 5) a magi st r at e j udge havi ng aut hor i t y i n anydi st r i ct wher e act i vi t i es r el at ed t o t he cr i me mayhave occur r ed, or i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, mayi ssue a war r ant f or pr oper t y t hat i s l ocat ed out si det he j ur i sdi cti on of any st at e or di st r i ct, 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 on, orcommonweal t h;

( B) t he pr emi ses - - no mat t er who owns t hem - - ofa Uni t ed St at es di pl omat i c or consul ar mi ssi on i na f or ei gn st at e, i ncl udi ng any appur t enant



11/39

[11]

bui l di ng, par t of a bui l di ng, or l and used f ort he mi ssi on' s pur poses; or

( C) a resi dence and any appur t enant l and owned orl eased by t he Uni t ed St ates and used by Uni t ed

St at es per sonnel assi gned t o a Uni t ed St at esdi pl omat i c or consul ar mi ssi on i n a f or ei gnstat e.

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 41( b) .

The gover nment ar gues f or a l i ber al const r uct i on of Rul e

41( b) t hat woul d aut hor i ze the t ype of sear ch t hat occur r ed her e

pur suant t o t he NI T War r ant . See Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 18- 20.

Speci f i cal l y, i t ar gues t hat subsecti ons ( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 4) of

Rul e 41( b) ar e each suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he magi st r at e j udge’ s

i ssuance of t he NI T War r ant . I d. Thi s Cour t i s unper suaded by

t he gover nment ’ s argument s. Because the NI T Warr ant pur por t ed

t o aut hor i ze a sear ch of pr oper t y l ocat ed out si de t he East er n

Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, and because none of t he except 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 aut hor i t y under

Rul e 41( b) t o i ssue t he NI T War r ant .

i. Rule 41(b)(1)

The gover nment advances t wo di st i nct l i nes of ar gument as

t o why Rul e 41( b) ( 1) aut hor i zes t he NI T Warr ant . One i s t hat

al l of t he pr oper t y t hat was sear ched pur suant t o the NI T

War r ant was act ual l y l ocat 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 : si nce Levi n - - as a



12/39

[12]

user of Websi t e A - - “r et r i eved t he NI T f r om a 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 sent [ Levi n’ s] net wor k

i nf or mat i on back t o a ser ver i n t hat di st r i ct , ” t he gover nment

argues t he sear ch i t conduct ed pur suant t o t he NI T Warr ant

pr oper l y can be under st ood as occur r i ng wi t hi n t he East er n

Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a. Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 20. Thi s i s not hi ng but a

str ai ned, af t er - t he- f act r at i onal i zat i on. I n i t s expl anat i on of

t he “Pl ace t o be Sear ched, ” t he NI T Warr ant made cl ear t hat t he

NI T woul d be used t o “obt ai n[ ] i nf or mat i on” f r om var i ous

“act i vat i ng comput er s[ . ] ”8 NI T War r ant 32. As i s cl ear f r om

Levi n’ s case - - hi s comput er was l ocat ed i n Massachuset t s - - at

l east some of t he act i vat i ng comput er s wer e l ocat ed out si de of

t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a. That t he Websi t e A ser ver i s

l ocat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a i s, f or pur poses of

Rul e 41( b) ( 1) , i mmat er i al , s i nce i t i s not t he ser ver i t sel f

f r om whi ch t he r el evant i nf or mat i on was sought . See Uni t ed

St ates v. Mi chaud, No. 3: 15- cr - 05351- RJ B, 2016 WL 337263 at *6

( W. D. Wash. J an. 28, 2016) ( exami ni ng t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of t he

8 That t he cover page of t he NI T War r ant appl i cat i oni ndi cat ed t hat t he pr oper t y t o be sear ched was l ocat ed i n t heEast er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, see NI T War r ant 1, does not al t ert hi s concl usi on. See Mi chaud, 2016 WL 337263 at *4 ( obser vi ngt hat t o r ead t hi s NI T War r ant as aut hor i zi ng a sear ch ofpr oper t y l ocat ed excl usi vel y wi t hi n t he East er n Di st r i ct ofVi r gi ni a, on t he basi s of i t s cover page, i s “an over l y nar r owr eadi ng of t he NI T War r ant t hat i gnor es t he sum t ot al of i t scont ent . ”) .



13/39

[13]

same NI T Warr ant and concl udi ng t hat Rul e 41( b) ( 1) di d not

aut hor i ze t he sear ch “because t he obj ect of t he sear ch and

sei zur e was Mr . Mi chaud’ s comput er , not l ocat ed i n t he East er n

Di s t r i ct of Vi rgi ni a”) .

The gover nment ’ s ot her ar gument i s t hat wher e, as her e, i t

i s i mpossi bl e t o i dent i f y i n advance t he l ocat i on of t he

pr oper t y t o be sear ched, Rul e 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 known

connect i on t o t he sear ch” t o i ssue a war r ant . See Gov’ t ’ s Resp.

20. Thi s ar gument f ai l s, t hough, because i t adds wor ds t o t he

Rul e. See Lopez- Sot o v. Hawayek, 175 F. 3d 170, 173 ( 1st Ci r .

1999) ( “Cour t s have an obl i gat i on t o r ef r ai n f r om embel l i shi ng

st at ut es by i nsert i ng l anguage t hat Congr ess opt ed t o omi t . ”) .

ii. Rule 41(b)(2)

Rul e 41( b) ( 2) conf er s on magi st r at e j udges t he aut hor i t y

“t o i ssue a war r ant of a per son or pr oper t y out si de t he di st r i ct

i f t he per son or pr oper t y i s l ocat ed wi t hi n t he di st r i ct when

t he war r ant i s i ssued but mi ght move or be moved out si de the

di st r i ct bef or e t he war r ant i s execut ed. ” Fed. R. Cr i m. P.

41( b) ( 2) . The gover nment ar gues t hat because t he NI T ( i . e. , t he

comput er 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 s’ comput er s) was l ocat 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 ssued, t hi s subsect i on

appl i es. Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 19. As di scussed above, however , t he



14/39

[14]

actual pr opert y t o be searched was not t he NI T nor t he ser ver on

whi ch i t was l ocat ed, but r at her t he users’ comput er s.

Ther ef or e, Rul e 41( b) ( 2) i s i napposi t e.

iii. Rule 41(b)(4)

The Cour t i s si mi l ar l y unper suaded by t he gover nment ’ s

ar gument r egar di ng Rul e 41( b) ( 4) , whi ch aut hor i zes magi st r ate

j udges i n a par t i cul ar di st r i ct “t o i 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 ng devi ce, ” even wher e t he per son or

pr oper t y on whom t he devi ce i s i nst al l ed l at er moves out si de t he

di st r i ct , see Fed. 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 to Websi t e A users’ comput er s t o t he

i nst al l at i on of a t r acki ng devi ce i n a cont ai ner hol di ng

cont r aband, i nsof ar as each per mi t s t he gover nment t o i dent i f y

t he l ocat 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 ct i on. Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 19- 20. Thi s anal ogy does

not persuade t he Cour t t hat t he NI T pr oper l y may be consi dered a

t r acki ng devi ce, r egar dl ess of wher e t he “i nst al l at i on”

occur r ed. 9

9 I ndeed, as t he cour t poi nt ed out i n Mi chaud, whi chi nvol ved the same NI T Warr ant :

I f t he ‘ i nst al l at i on’ occur r ed on t he gover nment -cont r ol l ed comput er , l ocat ed i n t he East er n Di st r i ctof Vi r gi ni a, appl yi ng t he t r acki ng devi ce except i onbr eaks down, because [ user s of Websi t e A] nevercont r ol l ed t he gover nment - cont r ol l ed comput er , unl i kea car wi t h a t r acki ng devi ce l eavi ng a par t i cul ardi str i ct . I f t he i nstal l at i on occur r ed on [ t he



15/39

[15]

B. Suppression

Havi ng concl uded that nei t her t he Feder al Magi st r at es Act

nor Rul e 41( b) aut hor i zed t he i ssuance of t he NI T War r ant , t he

Cour t now t ur ns t o the quest i on of whet her suppr essi on of t he

evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o t he NI T War r ant i s an appr opr i at e

r emedy. Levi n argues t hat t hi s evi dence ought be suppr essed

because the magi st r at e j udge l acked j ur i sdi ct i on t o i ssue t he

NI T War r ant and because Levi n was prej udi ced by t he Rul e 41

vi ol at i on. Def . ’ s Mot . 13- 14. The gover nment ar gues t hat even

i f t he i ssuance of t he NI T War r ant was not sanct i oned by Rul e 41

or Sect i on 636( a) , suppr essi on i s t oo 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 r esul t i ng pr ej udi ce t o Levi n. Gov’ t ’ s Resp.

i ndi vi dual Websi t e A user ’ s] comput er , appl yi ng t het r acki ng devi ce except i on agai n f ai l s, because [ t heuser ’ s] comput er was never physi cal l y l ocat ed wi t hi nt he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a.

2016 WL 337263 at *6. I n any case, t he Cour t i s per suaded byt 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 erat Premi ses Unknown, 958 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 ( S. D. Tex. 2013)( r ej ect i ng gover nment ’ s appl i cat i on f or a war r ant r emot el y t oext r act i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on f r om a comput er i n an unknownl ocat i on, not i ng t hat “t her e i s no showi ng t hat t he i nst al l at i onof t he ‘ t r acki ng devi ce’ ( i . e. t he sof t war e) woul d t ake pl acewi t hi n t hi s di st r i ct . To t he cont r ar y, t he sof t war e woul d bei nst al l ed on a comput er whose l ocat i on coul d be anywhere on t hepl anet . ”) . Under t hat appr oach, t he “i nst al l at i on” of t he NI Toccur 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 heser ver i s l ocat ed, but r at her at t he si t e of each user ’ scomput er . See i d.



16/39

[16]

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

except i on t o t he excl usi onar y rul e ought pr ecl ude suppr essi on of

t he evi dence sei zed. I d. at 21- 23.

The Cour t concl udes t hat t he vi ol at i on at i ssue her e i s

di st i nct f r om t he t echni cal Rul e 41 vi ol at i ons t hat have been

deemed i nsuf f i ci ent t o war r ant suppr essi on i n past cases, and,

i n any event , Levi n was pr ej udi ced by t he vi ol at i on. Mor eover ,

t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on i s i nappl i cabl e

because t he war r ant at i ssue her e was voi d ab i ni t i o.

1. Nature of the Rule 41 Violation

A vi ol at i on of Rul e 41 t hat i s pur el y t echni cal or

mi ni st er i al gi ves r i se t o suppr essi on onl y wher e t he def endant

demonst r at es t hat he suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t of t he

vi ol at i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bonner , 808 F. 2d 864, 869 ( 1st

Ci r . 1986) . The gover nment appar ent l y submi t s t hat al l Rul e 41

vi ol at i ons “ar e essent i al l y mi ni st er i al , ” and accor di ngl y t hat

suppr essi on i s an i nappr opr i ate r emedy absent a showi ng of

pr ej udi ce. Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 16 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos-

Mont es, 786 F. 3d 92, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ) .

Rul e 41, however , has both pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve

pr ovi si ons - - and t he di f f er ence mat t er s. Cour t s f aced wi t h

vi ol at i ons of Rul e 41’ s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s have gener al l y

f ound such vi ol at i ons t o be mer el y mi ni st er i al or t echni cal , and



17/39

[17]

as a r esul t have determi ned suppr essi on t o be unwarr ant ed. 10 By

cont r ast , t hi s case i nvol ves a vi ol at i on of Rul e 41( b) , whi ch i s

“a subst ant i ve pr ovi si on[ . ] ” Uni t ed St at es v. Ber kos, 543 F. 3d

392, 398 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ; see al so 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 uni que f r om ot her pr ovi si ons of Rul e 41 because i t

i mpl i cat es subst ant i ve j udi ci al aut hor i t y, ” and accor di ngl y

concl udi ng t hat past cases i nvol vi ng vi ol at i ons of ot her

subsect i ons of Rul e 41 “of f er l i mi t ed gui dance”) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thus, i t does not f ol l ow

f r om cases i nvol vi ng vi ol at i ons of Rul e 41’ s pr ocedur al

pr ovi si ons t hat t he Rul e 41( b) vi ol at i on at i ssue her e - - whi ch

i nvol ves t he aut hor i t y of t he magi st r at e j udge t o i ssue t he

war r ant , and consequent l y, t he under l yi ng val i di t y of t he

10 These vi ol at i ons i mpl i cat e t he var i ous subsect i ons ofRul e 41, wi t h t he except i on of subsect 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 sear ch when t he f or m i t sel fpr ovi des t hat t he sear ch i s t o be 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 mshoul d be r et ur ned” was t echni cal vi ol at i on of Rul e 41( e) ) ;Bonner , 808 F. 2d at 869 ( of f i cer s’ f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h Rul e41( f ) r equi r ement of l eavi ng a copy of t he war r ant at t he pl acet o be sear ched was mi ni st er i al and di d not cal l f or suppr essi onof r esul t i ng evi dence) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dauphi nee, 538 F. 2d 1,3 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) ( “The var i ous pr ocedur al st eps r equi r ed byRul e 41( d) ar e basi cal l y mi ni st er i al [ , ] ” and t her ef or esuppr essi on of evi dence obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of t hat pr ovi si onwas not war r ant ed absent showi ng of pr ej udi ce) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Pr yor , 652 F. Supp. 1353, 1365- 66, ( D. Me. 1987) ( vi ol at i on ofRul e 41( c) ’ s procedur al r equi r ement s r egar di ng ni ght t i mesear ches di d not cal l f or suppr essi on) .



18/39

[18]

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) ( concl udi ng t hat a Rul e 41( b)

vi ol at i on const i t ut es a “j ur i sdi ct i onal f l aw” t hat cannot “be

excused as a ‘ t echni cal def ect ’ ”) .

Because t he vi ol at i on her e i nvol ved “subst ant i ve j udi ci al

aut hor i t y” rat her t han si mpl y “t he pr ocedur es f or obt ai ni ng and

i ssui ng war r ant s, ” Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1115 n. 7, t he Cour t

cannot concl ude t hat i t was mer el y mi ni st er i al ; i n f act , because

Rul e 41( b) di d not gr ant her aut hor i t y t o i 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 ct i on t o do so. 11 The

gover nment char act er i zes Levi n’ s chal l enge as t ar get i ng “t he

l ocat i on of t he sear ch, not pr obabl e cause or t he absence of

j udi ci al approval . ” Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 16. Her e, however , because

t he magi st r at e j udge l acked aut hor i t y, and t hus j ur i sdi ct i on, t o

i ssue the NI T War r ant , t her e si mpl y was no j udi ci al appr oval .

See Uni t ed St ates v. Houst on, 965 F. Supp. 2d 855, 902 n. 12 ( E. D.

Tenn. 2013) ( “A search war r ant i ssued by an i ndi vi dual wi t hout

11 For t he magi st r at e j udge to have had j ur i sdi ct i on t oi ssue t he warr ant under Sect i on 636( a) , she must have hadaut hor i t y t o do so under Rul e 41( b) , as t he government haspoi 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 et hat coul d ser ve as t he basi s f or such j ur i sdi ct i on. Mor eover ,t he gover nment ’ s argument r egar di ng cour t s’ i nher ent aut hor i t yt o i ssue war r ant s, see Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 20- 21, does not extend t omagi st r at e j udges, whose aut hor i t y der i ves f r om - - and i sbounded by - - t he speci f i c st at ut or y pr ovi si ons and r ul esdi scussed her ei n.



19/39

[19]

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. 2004) ( “A

sear ch war r ant si gned by a per son who l acks t he aut hor i t y t o

i ssue i t i s voi d as a mat t er of l aw. ”) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; cf .

St at e v. Sur owi ecki , 440 A. 2d 798, 799 ( Mont . 1981) ( “[ A] l awf ul

si gnat ur e on t he sear ch war r ant by t he per son aut hor i zed t o

i ssue i t [ i s] essent i al t o i t s i ssuance[ , ] ” such t hat an

unsi gned war r ant i s voi d under st at e l aw and conf er s no

aut hor i t y t o act , despi t e exi st ence of pr obabl e cause) .

NI Ts, whi l e r ai si ng ser i ous concer ns, 12 ar e l egi t i mat e l aw

enf or cement t ool s. I ndeed, per haps magi st r at e j udges shoul d

have t he aut hor i t y t o i ssue t hese t ypes of war r ant s. See I n r e

War r ant t o Sear ch a Tar get Comput er at Pr emi ses Unknown, 958

F. Supp. 2d at 761 (not i ng that “t here may wel l be a good reason

12 The Cour t expr esses no opi ni on on t he use of t hi spar t i cul ar pol i ce t act i c under t hese ci r cumst ances, but not est hat i t s use i n t he cont ext of i nvest i gat i ng and pr osecut i ngchi l d por nogr aphy has gi ven r i se t o si gni f i cant debat e. See,e. g. , The Et hi cs 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/ r oomf or debat e/ 2016/ 01/ 27/ t he-et hi cs- of - a- chi l d- por nogr aphy- st i ng. The cont i nui ng har m t o t hevi ct i ms of t hi s hi deous f or m of chi l d abuse i s t he di st r i but i onof t he phot ogr aphs and vi deos i n whi ch t he vi ct i ms 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 cover st i ngswhere the government buys cont r aband dr ugs t o cat ch the deal ers,her e t he gover nment di ssemi nat ed the chi l d obsceni t y t o cat cht he pur chasers - - somet hi ng aki n t o t he gover nment i t sel fsel l i ng dr ugs t o make t he st i ng.



20/39

[20]

t o updat e t he t er r i t or i al l i mi t s of [ Rul e 41] i n l i ght of

advanci ng comput er search t echnol ogy”) . 13 Today, however , no

13 Whether magi st r ate j udges shoul d have t he aut hor i t y toi ssue war r ant s t o sear ch pr oper t y l ocat ed out si de of t hei rdi st r i ct s under ci r cumst ances l i ke t he ones pr esent ed her e hasbeen t he subj ect of r ecent del i ber at i ons by t he Advi soryCommi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es. See Memorandum f r om Hon. ReenaRaggi , Advi sory Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es, t o Hon. J ef f r ey S.Sut t on, Chai r , Commi t t ee on Rul es of Pract i ce and Procedur e( “Raggi Mem. ”) ( May 5, 2014) ; Let t er f r om Mythi l i Raman, Act i ngAssi st ant At t or ney Gener al , t o Hon. Reena Raggi , Chai r , Advi soryCommi t t ee on the Cr i mi nal Rul es ( “Raman Let t er ”) ( Sept . 18,2013) ; cf . Zach Ler ner , A War r ant t o Hack: An Anal ysi s of t he

Proposed Amendment s t o Rul e 41 of t he Federal Rul es of Cr i mi nalPr ocedur e, 18 Yal e J . L. & Tech. 26 ( 2016) . As Levi n poi nt s outi n hi s mot i on, see Def . ’ s Mot . 18- 19, t he f ol l owi ng pr oposedamendment t o Rul e 41( b) i s curr ent l y under 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 ctwher e act i vi t i es r el at ed t o a cr i me may haveoccur r ed has aut hor i t y t o i ssue a war r ant t o user emot e access t o sear ch el ect r oni c st or age medi aand t o sei ze or copy el ect r oni cal l y st or edi nf or mat i on l ocat ed wi t hi n or out si de t hat

di st r i ct i f :

( A) t he di st r i ct wher e t he medi a or i nf or mat i oni s l ocat ed has been conceal ed t hr ought echnol ogi cal means; or

( B) i n an i nvest i gat i on of a vi ol at i on of 18U. S. C. § 1030( a) ( 5) , t he medi a ar e pr ot ect edcomput er s t hat have been damaged wi t houtaut hor i zat i on and ar e l ocat ed i n f i ve ormor e di st r i cts.

Prel i mi nary Dr af t of Proposed Amendment s t o t he FederalRul es of Appel l at e, Bankr upt cy, Ci vi l , and Cr i mi nalPr ocedur e 337- 38 ( “Pr oposed Rul e 41 Amendment ”) , Commi t t eeon Rul es of Pr act i ce and Pr ocedur e of t he J udi ci alConf er ence of t he Uni t ed St at es ( August 2014) ,ht t p: / / www. uscour t s. gov/ f i l e/ pr el i mi nar y- dr af t - pr oposed-amendment s- f eder al - r ul es- appel l at e- bankrupt cy- ci vi l - and-cr i mi nal .



21/39

[21]

magi st r at e j udge has t he aut hor i t y t o i ssue t hi s NI T war r ant .

Accor di ngl y, t he war r ant her e was voi d.

2. Prejudice

Even were the Cour t t o concl ude that t he Rul e 41( b)

vi ol at i on was mi ni st er i al , suppr essi on woul d st i l l be

appr opr i at e, as Levi n has demonst r at ed t hat he suf f er ed

pr ej udi ce. See Bur gos- Mont es, 786 F. 3d at 109 ( a Rul e 41

vi ol at i on “does not r equi r e suppr essi on unl ess t he def endant can

demonst r at e pr ej udi ce”) ( emphasi s added) ; cf . Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d

at 1117 ( af f i r mi ng di st r i ct cour t ’ s or der gr ant i ng def endant ’ s

mot i on t o suppr ess “[ b] ecause [ t he def endant ] met hi s bur den of

est abl i shi ng pr ej udi ce and because suppr essi on f ur t her s t he

pur pose of t he excl usi onary rul e by det er r i ng l aw enf or cement

f r om seeki ng and obt ai ni ng war r ant s t hat cl ear l y vi ol at e Rul e

Pr oponent s of t he amendment cont end t hat i t ought beadopt ed i n order “t o addr ess t wo i ncr easi ngl y commonsi t uat i ons: ( 1) wher e t he war r ant suf f i ci ent l y descr i best he comput er t o be sear ched but t he di st r i ct wi t hi n whi cht hat comput er i s l ocat ed i s unknown, and ( 2) where t hei nvest i gat i on r equi r es l aw enf or cement t o coor di nat esear ches of numer ous comput er s i n numer ous di st r i ct s. ”Raman Let t er 1.

Whi l e t he Advi sor y Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul esunani mousl y appr oved the pr oposed amendment , Raggi Mem. 5,i t has dr awn cri t i ci sm f r om st akehol der s r angi ng f r om t heAmer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on, see Let t er f r om Amer i canCi vi l Li ber t i es Uni on t o Member s of t he Advi sory Commi t t eeon Cr i mi nal Rul es ( Oct . 31, 2014) , t o Googl e, see Let t erf r om Ri char d Sal gado, Di r ect or , Law Enf or cement andI nf or mat i on Secur i t y, Googl e I nc. , t o J udi ci al Conf er enceAdvi sor y Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es ( Feb. 13, 2015) .



22/39

[22]

41( b) ( 1) ”) . “To show pr ej udi ce, def endant s must show t hat t hey

were subj ected t o a sear ch that mi ght not have occurr ed or woul d

not have been so abr asi ve had Rul e 41[ ] been f ol l owed. ”14

Bonner , 808 F. 2d at 869. Here, had Rul e 41( b) been f ol l owed,

t he magi st r at e j udge15 woul d not have i ssued t he NI T War r ant , and

t heref ore t he sear ch conduct ed pur suant t o t hat Warr ant mi ght

14 Cour t s out si de t hi s di st r i ct f aced wi t h Rul e 41( b)

vi ol at i ons have consi der ed ( and i n some 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 , 809 F. 3d at 1116 ( eval uat i ng government ’ s pr oposedpr ej udi ce st andar d, “whi ch woul d pr ecl ude def endant s f r omest abl i shi ng pr ej udi ce i n t hi s cont ext so l ong as t he[ g] over nment hypot het i cal l y coul d have obt ai ned t he war r ant f r oma di f f er ent f eder al magi st r at e j udge wi t h war r ant - i ssui ngaut hor i t y under t he Rul e”) ; Mi chaud, 2016 WL 337263 at *6- 7. I nMi chaud, t he cour t r easoned t hat t he most “sensi bl ei nt er pr et at i on” of t he pr ej udi ce st andar d i n t hi s cont ext i saski ng “whet her t he evi dence obt ai ned f r om a war r ant t hat

vi ol at es Rul e 41( b) coul d have been avai l abl e by ot her l awf ulmeans[ . ] ” 2016 WL 337263 at *6 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s Cour tr espect f ul l y decl i nes t o f ol l ow t he Mi chaud cour t ’ s appr oach,i nst ead adher i ng t o t he pr ej udi ce st andar d gener al l y appl i cabl et o Rul e 41 vi ol at i ons. Cf . Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1116 ( r ej ect i nggovernment ’ s proposed pr ej udi ce st andard, whi ch “woul d pr ecl udedef endant s f r om est abl i shi ng pr ej udi ce i n t hi s cont ext so l ongas t he Government hypothet i cal l y coul d have obt ai ned t he warr antf 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 ngaut hor i t y under t he Rul e[ , ] ” r easoni ng t hat “[ w] hen i t comes t osomethi ng as basi c as who can i ssue a warr ant , we si mpl y cannotaccept such a specul at i ve appr oach” and that i nst ead thest andar d “shoul d be anchored t o t he f act s as t hey act ual l yoccur r ed”) .

15 Thi s i s not t o say t hat a di st r i ct j udge coul d not havei ssued t he NI T War r ant , si nce Rul e 41( b) and Sect i on 636( a) bearonl y on t he aut hor i t y of magi st r at e j udges t o i ssue war r ant s.See i nf ra Part I I I ( B) ( 4) .



23/39

[23]

not have occur r ed. 16 See Kr ueger , 809 F. 3d at 1116 ( hol di ng t hat

def endant suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t of havi ng been

subj ect ed t o a sear ch t hat vi ol at ed Rul e 41( b) , si nce t hat

sear ch “mi ght not have occurr ed because t he Gover nment woul d not

have obt ai ned [ t he war r ant ] had Rul e 41( b) ( 1) been f ol l owed. ”) .

Cont r ast Uni t ed St at es v. Scot 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 natur e of t he search woul d not have changed even i f [ t he

def endant ] had been gi ven a copy of t he warr ant pr i or t o t he

sear ch, as r equi r ed under t he r ul es) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ones,

949 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 ( D. Mass. 2013) ( Sar i s, C. J . ) ( l aw

enf or cement of f i cer ’ s f ai l ur e to l eave the def endant wi t h a copy

of t he war r ant , as r equi r ed by Rul e 41( f ) , was not pr ej udi ci al ) .

To r ebut Levi n’ s prej udi ce ar gument , t he gover nment appears

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 obabl e cause, j udi ci al appr oval , and t he

comput er ser ver whi ch t he def endant accessed t o vi ew chi l d

por nogr aphy was physi cal l y l ocat ed i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on wher e t he

i ssui ng magi st r at e was l ocat ed, t her e can be no pr ej udi ce t o the

16 I t f ol l ows f r om t hi s t hat t he gover nment mi ght not haveobt ai ned t he evi dence i t sei zed pur suant t o t he Resi dent i alWar r ant , si nce the appl i cat i on f or t hat war r ant was based oni nf or mat i on i t acqui r ed t hr ough t he execut i on of t he NI TWar r ant . As t he gover nment i t sel f poi nt s out , i t “had no way t oknow wher e t he def endant was wi t hout f i r st usi ng t he NI T[ . ] ”Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 15.



24/39

[24]

def endant . ” Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 16. 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, and t he gover nment di r ects

t he Cour t t o no aut hor i t y t o suppor t i t s asser t i on. Mor eover ,

as di scussed above, 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, even by t hi s

st andar d, t he gover nment ’ s ar gument agai nst pr ej udi ce must f ai l .

3. Good-Faith Exception

Fi nal l y, t he gover nment ar gues t hat , even i f t he NI T

War r ant vi ol at ed t he Feder al Magi st r at es Act and Rul e 41( b) , t he

Cour t ought not excl ude t he evi dence sei zed pur suant t o t he NI T

Warr ant because t he l aw enf orcement of f i cer s her e act ed i n good

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

U. S. 897, 918, 926 ( 1984) ) . Whet her t he good- f ai t h except i on

appl i es wher e a war r ant was voi d i s a quest i on of f i r st

i mpr essi on i n t hi s Ci r cui t , and an unr esol ved quest i on mor e

br oadl y. See Wayne R. LaFave, Sear ch and Sei zure: A Treat i se on

t he Four t h Amendment , § 1. 3( f ) n. 60 ( “I t i s uncl ear whet her t he

[ Leon good- f ai t h] r ul e extends t o a war r ant ‘ t hat was

essent i al l y voi d ab i ni t i o’ because of ‘ t he i ssui ng cour t ’ s l ack

of j ur i sdi cti on t o aut hor i ze t he sear ch i n t he f i r st

i nst ance. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Baker , 894 F. 2d 1144,

1147 ( 10t h Ci r . 1990) ) . Thi s Cour t hol ds t hat i t does not .

I n Leon, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d that suppr essi on was

unwarr ant ed where evi dence was obt ai ned pursuant t o a search



25/39

[25]

warr ant t hat was l ater determi ned t o be unsupport ed by pr obabl e

cause, si nce t he execut i ng of f i cer s act ed i n obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e r el i ance on t he war r ant ’ s val i di t y. See 468 U. S. at

922. I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, t he Supr eme Cour t observed

t hat “[ r ] easonabl e mi nds f r equent l y may di f f er on t he quest i on

whet her a par t i cul ar af f i davi t est abl i shes pr obabl e cause, and

we have t hus concl uded t hat t he pr ef erence f or warr ant s i s most

appr opr i at el y ef f ect uat ed by accor 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 and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Leon cont ai ns not t he sl i ght est suggest i on, however , t hat

t he same def erence ought appl y when magi st r at e j udges deter mi ne

t hei r own j ur i sdi ct i on. I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s concl usi on

pr esupposes t hat t he i ssui ng magi st r at e j udge was aut hor i zed t o

i ssue t he chal l enged war r ant . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Houst on, No.

3: 13- 09- DCR, 2014 WL 259085 at *26 n. 14 ( E. D. Tenn. J an. 23,

2014) ( wher e a war r ant i s “voi d ab i ni t i o . . . t he [ c] our t

never r eaches t he quest i on of whet her t he sear ch war r ant i s

suppor t ed by pr obabl e cause”) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Mor eover , Leon deal s expl i ci t l y wi t h a “subsequent l y i nval i dat ed

war r ant , ” 468 U. S. at 918 ( emphasi s added) , r at her t han a

war r ant t hat was voi d at t he t i me of i t s i ssuance. The l at t er



26/39

[26]

r ai ses qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent concer ns, as sever al post - Leon

cour t s have r ecogni zed. 17

Over t he year s s i nce Leon, t he Supreme Cour t has expanded

t he good- f ai t h except i on t o cont ext s beyond those Leon

speci f i cal l y addr essed. 18 None of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s post - Leon

good- f ai t h cases, however , i nvol ved a war r ant t hat was voi d ab

i ni t i o, and t her ef or e none di r ect t he concl usi on t hat t he good-

17 Cour t s i nt er pr et i ng t he scope of Leon have r epeat edl y

hel d or acknowl edged i n di ct a t hat wher e evi dence i s obt ai nedpur suant t o a war r ant t hat i s voi d ab i ni t i o, t he good- f ai t hexcept i on has no appl i cat i on. See, e. g. , St at e v. Wi l son, 618N. W. 2d 513, 520 ( S. D. 2000) ( hol di ng t hat good- f ai t h except i oncoul d not save evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o warr ant i ssued bystat e j udge act i ng out s i de t er r i t or i al j ur i sdi ct i on, s i nce“[ a] ct i ons by a pol i ce of f i cer cannot be used t o cr eat e j ur i sdi ct i on, even when done i n good f ai t h”) ; Stat e v. Nunez,634 A. 2d 1167, 1171 ( R. I . 1993) ( st at i ng i n di ct a t hat Leon

good- f ai t h except i on “woul d be i nappl i cabl e to thi s casebecause” i t i nvol ved a war r ant i ssued by a r et i r ed j udge wi t houtaut hor i t y t o do so, and t hus was “voi d ab i ni t i o”) ; Commonweal t hv. Shel t on, 766 S. W. 2d 628, 629- 30 ( Ky. 1989) ( not i ng i n di ct at hat Leon woul d not be appl i cabl e si nce “i n t he case at bar , wear e not conf r ont ed wi t h a t echni cal def i ci ency; but r at her aquest i on of j ur i 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 Leon’ s good-f ai t h except i on i nappl i cabl e si nce t he case i nvol ved not t he“det er mi nat i on of what quant um of evi dence const i t ut es pr obabl ecause” but r ather “ t he more f undament al pr obl emof a magi st r ate j udge act i ng wi t hout subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on”) .

18 Leon, al ong wi t h i t s compani on case, Massachuset t s v.Sheppard, 468 U. S. 981 (1984) , “cont empl ated t wo ci r cumst ances:one i n whi ch a war r ant i s i ssued and i s subsequent l y f ound to beunsuppor t ed by pr obabl e cause and t he ot her i n whi ch a warr anti s suppor t ed by pr obabl e cause, but i s t echni cal l y def i ci ent . ”Vi nni e, 683 F. Supp. at 288.



27/39

[27]

f ai t h except i on ought appl y t o t hi s case. 19 Thi s Cour t i s awar e

of onl y one f eder al ci r cui t cour t t o addr ess t he quest i on of

whet her Leon’ s good- f ai t h except i on appl i es i n t hese

ci r cumst ances: t he Si xth Ci r cui t . See Mast er , 614 F. 3d 236;

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

i nvol ved a sear ch war r ant i ssued by a r et i r ed j udge who l acked

aut hor i t y t o do so. 260 F. 3d at 513. Af t er hol di ng t hat such

war r ant was necessar i l y voi d ab i ni t i o, i d. at 515, t he cour t

concl uded t hat , “[ d] espi t e t he dear t h of case l aw, we ar e

conf i dent t hat Leon di d not cont empl at e a si t uat i on wher e a

19 The good- f ai t h except i on has been hel d t o appl y whereof f i cer s execut e a war r ant i n r el i ance on exi st i ng l aw. SeeDavi s v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2419 ( 2011) ( good- f ai t hexcept i on pr ecl uded suppr essi on of evi dence obt ai ned thr ough asear ch i nci dent t o ar r est t hat was pr oper under bi ndi ngappel l ate pr ecedent at t he t i me of t he search but whi ch was

l at er hel d t o be unl awf ul ) ; I l l i noi s v. Kr ul l , 480 U. S. 340( 1987) ( good- f ai t h except i on appl i ed t o a war r ant l essadmi ni st r at i ve sear ch conduct ed pur suant t o a st at ut e l at erf ound t o be unconst i t ut i onal , wher e t he of f i cer ’ s r el i ance ont he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he st at ut e was obj ect i vel yr easonabl e) . Unl i ke i n t hose cases, her e t her e was no“i nt er veni ng change i n t he l aw t hat made the good- f ai t hexcept i on r el evant . ” Uni t ed St at es v. Wur i e, 728 F. 3d 1 ( 1stCi r . 2013) .

The Supreme Cour t has al so appl i ed t he good- f ai t h except i oni n ci r cumst ances i nvol vi ng one- of f mi st akes of f act t hati mpl i cat e t he val i di t y of a war r ant at t he t i me of i t sexecut i on. See Her r i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 555 U. S. 135 ( 2009)( good- f ai t h except i on appl i ed t o evi dence i mpr oper l y obt ai ned asa r esul t of l aw enf or cement ’ s negl i gent r ecor d- keepi ngpr act i ces) ; Ar i zona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1 ( 1995) ( evi dence sei zedi n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment as a r esul t of a cl er i caler r or on t he par t of cour t per sonnel was cover ed by good- f ai t hexcept i on and t hus di d not war r ant suppr essi on) . Her e, i ncont r ast , t he war r ant was voi d at i t s i ncept i on.



28/39

[28]

war r ant i s i ssued by a per son l acki 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 t ef f ect i vel y r ever sed

i t sel f i n Mast er , whi ch i nvol ved a war r ant i ssued by a st at e

j udge t o search proper t y out si de hi s di st r i ct , whi ch was

unaut hor i zed under Tennessee l aw. 614 F. 3d at 239. The cour t

hel d t hat t he warr ant was i nval i d f or t he same r eason as was t he

war r ant i n Scot t , 20 i d. at 240, but t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on

t o the excl usi onar y rul e appl i ed because Scot t ’ s r easoni ng was

“no l onger cl ear l y consi st ent wi t h cur r ent Supr eme Cour t

doctr i ne. ” I d. at 242. I n par t i cul ar , i t not ed t hat “[t ] he

Supr eme Cour t has ef f ect i vel y creat ed a bal anci ng t est by

r equi r i ng t hat i n or der f or a cour t t o suppr ess evi dence

f ol l owi ng t he f i ndi ng of a Four 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 s. ’ ” I d. at 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 Supreme Court ’ s r ecent good- f ai t h

cases t oo br oadl y. 21 Thi s Cour t i s per suaded i nst ead by t he

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

21 Even i n Mast er , i t shoul d be not ed, t he cour tacknowl edged t hat t he recent Supr eme Cour t cases addr essi ng the



29/39

[29]

r at i onal e i n Scot t and cases appl yi ng t he hol di ng of t hat

deci si on, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Neer i ng, 194 F. Supp. 2d 620

( E. D. Mi ch. 2002) ( war r ant i ssued by an of f i ci al who was not

pr oper l y appoi nt ed and t her ef or e l acked i ssui ng aut hor i t y was

voi d, and under Scot t , t he good- f ai t h except 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 cour t

ci t ed i n suppor t of i t s concl usi on t hat Scot t ’ s hol di ng i s no

l onger t enabl e, see 614 F. 3d at 242 - - r equi r es t he concl usi on

t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on appl i es t o evi dence sei zed

pur suant t o a war r ant t hat was voi d ab i ni t i o. 22

good- f ai t h except i on “do[ ] not di r ect l y over r ul e our pr evi ousdeci si on i n Scot t . ” 614 F. 3d at 243.

22 I n Hudson, 547 U. S. 586 ( 2006) , t he Supr eme Cour t hel dt hat suppr essi on was not an appr opr i at e r emedy f or a vi ol at i onof t he knock- and- announce r ul e. See i d. at 599. I n r eachi ng

t hi s concl usi on, t he pl ur al i t y expl i ci t l y di st i ngui shed t hei nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he war r ant r equi r ement and the knock-and- announce r equi r ement . See i d. at 593. Wi t h r espect t o t hewar r ant r equi r ement , i t not ed t hat “[ u] nt i l a val i d war r ant hasi ssued, ci t i zens ar e ent i t l ed t o shi el d t hei r per sons, houses,paper s, and ef f ect s . . . f r om t he gover nment ’ s scrut i ny[ , ] ” andt hat “[ e] xcl usi on of t he evi dence obt ai ned by a war r ant l esssear ch vi ndi cat es t hat ent i t l ement . ” I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . As no val i dwarr ant was ever i ssued her e, and the government does not arguet hat an except i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement appl i es, excl usi oni s appr opr i at e.

Her r i ng, t oo, i s di st i ngui shabl e. Ther e, l aw enf or cementof f i cer s execut ed an ar r est war r ant t hat had been r esci nded.555 U. S. at 138. The Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat si nce t he mi st akewas at t r i but abl e t o “i sol at ed negl i gence at t enuat ed f r om t hear r est ” - - speci f i cal l y, a r ecor dkeepi ng er r or –- t he good- f ai t hexcept i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e appl i ed. I d. at 137.Al t hough that case makes much of t he connect i on bet ween theexcl usi onar y rul e and t he goal of det er r ence and cul pabi l i t y of



30/39

[30]

Because a war r ant t hat was voi d at t he out set i s aki n t o no

war r ant at al l , cases i nvol vi ng t he appl i cat i on of t he good-

f ai t h except i on t o evi dence sei zed pur suant t o a war r ant l ess

sear ch ar e especi 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 t decl i ned t o

“r ecogni ze[ ] a good- f ai t h except i on i n r espect t o war r ant l ess

sear ches. ” I d. at 44. 23 To hol d t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on

i s appl i cabl e her e woul d col l apse the 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 as

“mi sj udgi ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence or t he war r ant

l aw enf or cement , see i d. at 141- 43, i t says not hi ng aboutwhether t he same cal cul us ought appl y where t here was never j ur i sdi ct i on t o i ssue a val i d war r ant i n t he f i r st pl ace.

23 Whi l e no case has di r ect l y di st ur bed t hi s hol di ng, t heFi r st Ci r cui t has si nce hel d t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on mayexempt f r om excl usi on evi dence sei zed pur suant t o anunconst i t ut i onal war r ant l ess sear ch “‘ conduct ed i n obj ect i vel yr easonabl e r el i ance on bi ndi ng appel l at e pr ecedent [ . ] ’ ” Uni t edSt at es v. Spar ks, 711 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ngDavi s, 131 S. Ct . at 2434) . Cases l i ke Spar ks, t hough, ar er eadi l y di st i ngui shabl e: t he of f i cer s i n Spar ks wer e ent i t l ed t or el y on ci r cui t pr ecedent i ndi cat i ng t hat t hey coul d conduct t hechal l enged sear ch wi t hout a war r ant ; by cont r ast , her e nobi ndi ng appel l at e pr ecedent aut hor i zed t he of f i cer s t o under t aket he search ei t her wi t hout a war r ant or pur suant t o one that wasvoi d at t he out set . To det er mi ne whet her t he good- f ai t hexcept i on appl i ed i n Spar ks, t he cour t asked: “what uni ver se ofcases can t he pol i ce r el y on? And how cl ear l y must t hose casesgover n t he cur r ent case f or t hat r el i ance t o be obj ect i vel yr easonabl e?” 711 F. 3d at 64. Such quest i ons ar e whol l yi napposi t e her e.



31/39

[31]

appl i 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 udi ci al aut hor i t y, ” i . e. , a j udge

“act [ i ng] out si de of t he l aw, out si de of t he aut hor i t y gr ant ed

t o j udges i n t he f i r st pl ace. ” St at e v. Hess, 770 N. W. 2d 769,

776 ( Ct . App. Wi s. 2009) ( emphasi s added) ; cf . Scot t , 260 F. 3d

at 515 ( “Leon pr esupposed t hat t he warr ant was i ssued 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 as whet her t he excl usi onar y rul e appl i ed t o

‘ evi dence obt ai ned by of f i cer s act i ng i n r easonabl e r el i ance on

a search warr ant i ssued by a detached and neut r al magi st r ate but

ul t i mat el y f ound t o be unsuppor t ed by pr obabl e cause. ’ ”)

( quot i ng Leon, 468 U. S. at 900) ; St at e v. Vi cker s, 964 P. 2d 756,

762 ( Mont . 1998) ( di st i ngui shi ng Leon and concl udi ng t hat “[ i ] f

a sear ch war r ant i s voi d ab i ni t i o, t he i nqui r y st ops and al l

ot her i ssues per t ai ni ng t o t he val i di t y of t he sear ch war r ant ,

such as whet her t he pur pose of t he excl usi onar y rul e i s ser ved,

ar e moot . ”) . Wer e t he good- f ai t h except i on t o appl y her e,

cour t s woul d have t o t ol erat e evi dence obt ai ned when an of f i cer

submi t t ed somet hi ng t hat r easonabl y l ooked l i ke a val i d war r ant

appl i cat i on, t o someone who, t o t he of f i cer , appear ed t o have

aut hor i t y t o appr ove t hat war r ant appl i cat i on. Cf . Kr ueger , 809

F. 3d at 1126 ( Gor such, J . , concur r i ng) . Thi s Cour t hol ds t hat



32/39

[32]

such an expansi on of t he good- f ai t h except i on i s i mpr ovi dent ,

and not r equi r ed by cur r ent pr ecedent . 24

Even wer e t he Cour t t o hol d t hat t he good- f ai t h except i on

coul d appl y t o ci r cumst ances i nvol vi ng a sear ch pur suant t o a

war r ant i ssued wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on, i t woul d decl i ne t o r ul e

such except i on appl i cabl e her e. For one, i t was not obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e f or l aw enf or cement - - par t i cul ar l y “a vet er an FBI

agent wi t h 19 year s of f eder al l aw enf or cement exper i ence[ , ] ”

Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 7- 8 - - t o bel i eve t hat t he NI T War r ant was

pr oper l y i ssued 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 qui t e a st r et ch t o l abel

t he gover nment ’ s act i ons i n 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. McKeever , 894 F. 2d 712, 717 ( 5t h Ci r . 1990) ( good-

f ai t h except i on di d not appl y wher e sher i f f “who was t he pr i me

mover i n obt ai ni ng and execut i ng t he sear ch . . . knew bot h t hat

24 Whi l e t he excl usi onar y rul e has i t s det r act or s, see,e. g. , Akhi l Reed Amar , Four t h Amendment Fi r st Pr i nci pl es, 107Har v. L. Rev. 757, 785- 800 ( 1994) ( ar gui ng t hat suppr essi on i san “awkward and embar r ass i ng r emedy” t hat i s unsuppor t ed by thet ext of t he Four t h Amendment ) , “when a cr i mi nal convi ct i on i spr edi cat ed on a vi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on’ s cri mi nalpr ocedur e requi r ement s, i ncl udi ng the Four t h Amendment , t heconvi ct i on wor ks an ongoi ng depr i vat i on of l i ber t y wi t hout duepr ocess , ” Ri char d M. Re, The Due Pr ocess Excl usi onar y Rul e, 127Har v. L. Rev. 1885, 1887 ( 2014) ; see al so Car ol S. St ei ker ,Second Thought s About Fi r st Pr i nci pl es, 107 Har v. L. Rev. 820,848- 852 ( 1994) .



33/39

[33]

he had t o obt ai n a war r ant f r om a cour t of r ecor d . . . and t hat

[ t he i ssui ng j udge] was not a j udge of a cour t of r ecor d. ”) . 25

Moreover , even anal yzed under Herr i ng, t he conduct at i ssue here

can be descr i bed as “syst emi c 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’ sNot es, ECF No. 62, t he gover nment i ndi cat ed t hat t he par t i cul arof f i cer s execut i ng t he sear ch cannot be char ged wi t h t heknowl edge that t he war r ant was i ssued i n vi ol at i on of t heFeder al Magi st r at es Act and Rul e 41( b) . But i t woul d bei ncongr uous to vi ew t hese of f i cer s’ conduct i n i sol at i on. As

Pr of essor Amst er dam ar t i cul at ed:

[ S] ur el y i t i s unr eal t o t r eat t he of f endi ng of f i ceras a pr i vat e mal ef act or who j ust happens t o recei ve agovernment paycheck. I t i s t he government t hat sendshi m out on t he st r eet s wi t h t he j ob of r epr essi ngcr i me and of gat her i ng cr i mi nal evi dence i n or der t or epr ess i t . I t i s t he gover nment t hat mot i vat es hi mt o conduct sear ches and sei zur es as a par t of hi s j ob,empower s hi m and equi ps hi m t o conduct t hem. I f i tal so recei ves t he pr oduct s of t hose sear ches andsei zur es wi t hout r egar d t o t hei r const i t ut i onal i t y anduses t hemas t he means of convi ct i ng peopl e whomt heof f i cer concei ves i t t o be hi s j ob t o get convi cted,i t i s not mer el y t ol er at i ng but i nduci ngunconst i t ut i onal sear ches and sei zur es.

Anthony G. Amst erdam, Perspect i ves on t he Fourt h Amendment ,58 Mi nn. L. Rev. 349, 432 ( 1974) .



34/39

[34]

const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s, ”26 555 U. S. at 147, and t he Cour t

t hus concl udes t hat suppr essi on i s appr opr i at e. 27

4. Policy Ramifications

Not wi t hst andi ng t he Cour t ’ s doct r i nal anal ysi s - - whi ch has

now concl uded - - t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul of t he t hor ny pr act i cal

quest i ons t hi s mot i on r ai ses. The gover nment asser t s t hat t o

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

26 The Supr eme Cour t does not def i ne “syst emi c negl i gence, ”

Her r i ng, 555 U. S. at 144, or “syst emi c er r or , ” i d. at 147, andt he f or mer , at l east , i s appar ent l y a new t er m i n t he Supr emeCour t ’ s l exi con, see Wayne R. Laf ave, The Smel l of Her r i ng: ACr i t i que of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s Lat est Assaul t on t heExcl usi onar y Rul e, 99 J . Cr i m. L. & Cr i mi nol ogy 757, 784 ( 2009) .I t i s di f f i cul t t o ascer t ai n t he f r equency wi t h whi ch si mi l arwar r ant s - - i . e. , war r ant s t o conduct r emot e sear ches ofpr oper t y l ocat 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 e t ypi cal l y i ssued andr emai n under seal . See Owsl ey, supr a not e 4, at 4- 5.Nonet hel ess, i t i s cl 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 i n whi ch the government has sought and obt ai ned anNI T war r ant . See i d. ( l i st i ng cases i nvol vi ng NI T war r ant s orsi mi l ar ) ; Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 23.

27 The Cour t acknowl edges t hat suppr essi on i s an ext r emer emedy, and consequent l y i t consi der ed whether , on t hi s occasi on- - but never agai n under t hese ci r cumst ances - - t he evi dence ati ssue ought be l et i n under t he good- f ai t h except i on. See St at ev. Hardy, No. 16964, 1998 WL 543368, at *6- 7 ( Ct . App. Ohi o Aug.28, 1998) ( Fai n, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( concl udi ngt hat good- f ai t h except i on shoul d appl y t o evi dence obt ai nedpur suant t o a war r ant i ssued wi t hout pr oper j ur i sdi ct i on, butnot i ng t hat “[ o] nce we al l ow t i me f or r easonabl e pol i ce of f i cer swi t hi n t hi s j ur i sdi ct i on t o become acquai nt ed wi t h t het er r i t or i al l i mi t s upon a magi st r at e j udge' s aut hor i t y t o i ssuesear ch war r ant s, however , cl ai ms of good- f ai t h except i ons t o t hewar r ant r equi r ement ar e l i kel y t o be unavai l i ng. ”) . Uponf ur t her del i ber at i on, however , t he Cour t concl uded t hat t o hol dt hat Leon’ s good- f ai t h except i on appl i es her e, wher e t her e neverexi st ed a val i d war r ant , woul d st r et ch t hat except i on t oo f ar .



35/39

[35]

War r ant , and accor di ngl y t o suppr ess t he evi dence obt ai ned

pur suant t her et o, woul d cr eat e “an i nsur mount abl e l egal bar r i er ”

t o l aw enf or cement ef f or t s i n t hi s r eal m. Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 16.

The Court i s unmoved by t he gover nment ’ s ar gument f or t wo

r easons.

Fi r st , i t cannot f ai r l y be sai 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 nsurmount abl e, ” because t he government i t sel f has come up wi t h

a way of surmount i ng i t - - namel y, t o change Rul e 41( b) , see

supr a note 13.

Second, i t does not f ol l ow f r om t hi s opi ni on t hat t her e was

no way f or t he government t o have obt ai ned t he NI T Warr 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 scope of

magi st r at e j udges - - t hey say not hi ng about t he aut hor i t y of

di st r i ct j udges t o i ssue war r ant s t o sear ch pr oper t y l ocat ed

out si de t hei r j udi ci al di st r i cts. 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 nment ’ s own br i ef , i s r eveal i ng: “Rul e 41

does not def i ne t he extent of t he cour t ’ s power t o i ssue a

sear ch warr ant . . . . Gi ven t he Four t h Amendment ’ s warr ant

r equi r ement s and assumi ng no st at ut or y pr ohi bi t i on, t he cour t s

must be deemed t o have i nher ent power t o i ssue a war r ant when

t he r equi r ement s of t hat Amendment are met . ” Gov’ t ’ s Resp. 20-

21 ( quot i ng Vi l l egas, 899 F. 2d at 1334) . Wi t h r espect t o



36/39

[36]

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 r est r i ct s t hei r i nher ent aut hor i t y t o

i ssue warr ant s consi st ent wi t h t he Four t h Amendment . 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 war r ant s

t o sear ch out si de hi s di st r i ct has no bear i ng on “t he st at ut or y

aut hor i t i es of a di st r i ct j udge t o i ssue a war r ant f or an out -

of - di st r i ct sear ch[ , ] ” and poi nt i ng out t hat “[ u] nl i ke

magi str at es, t he j ur i sdi ct i on of di str i ct cour t s i s usual l y

def i ned by subj ect mat t er and par t i es r at her t han st r i ct l y by

geogr aphy. ”) ; cf . Mat t er of Appl i 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) ( 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 power ,

whi ch i s 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 Sur pr i si ngl y, a number of cour t s have appar ent l yunder 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, 743 F. 3d 44, 51 ( 3d Ci r . 2014) ( “Rul e41( b) gr ant s t he aut hor i t y to i ssue sear ch war r ant s t o f eder al j udges and j udges of st at e cour t s of r ecor d. ”) ; Gl over , 736 F. 3dat 515 ( concl udi ng t hat a war r ant i ssued by a di st r i ct j udge tosear ch pr oper t y out si de t hat j udge’ s di st r i ct vi ol at ed Rul e41( b) ( 2) ) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Kr awi ec, 627 F. 2d 577, 580 ( 1stCi r . 1980) ( i ndi cat i ng t hat al l “f eder al war r ant s” ar e r equi r edt o compl y wi t h Rul e 41) . On i t s f ace, however , Rul e 41( b)appl i es onl y t o “a magi st r at e j udge” and “a j udge of a st at ecour t of r ecor d. ” The aut hor i t y of di st r i ct j udges to i ssuewar r ant s ar i ses el sewher e, see Vi l l egas, 899 F. 2d at 1334; 18U. S. C. § 3102, and di st r i ct j udges ar e not subj ect t o t hel i mi t at i ons set f or t h i n Rul e 41( b) .



37/39

[37]

The magi st r at e j udge who i ssued t hi s war r ant si t s pr i mar i l y

i n Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a. See NI T War r ant . Four di st r i ct j udges

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

Al exandr i a Cour t house, Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t East er n

Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, ht t p: / / www. vaed. uscour t s. gov/ l ocat 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 nvest 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 .

Of cour se, were t he government t o pr esent i t s NI T Warr ant

appl i 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 equi r ement s of t he Four t h Amendment , whi ch guarant ees t hat “no

War r ant s shal l i ssue, but upon pr obabl e cause, suppor t ed by Oat h

or af f i r mat i on, and par t i cul ar l y descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be

sear ched. ” U. S. Const . amend. I V. Of speci al concer n her e i s

t he par t i cul ar i t y requi r ement , si nce, as t he gover nment poi nt s

out , “t he def endant ’ s use of t he Tor hi dden servi 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 execut i on of t he war r ant woul d t ake pl ace i n, ” Gov’ t ’ s

Resp. 20. 29 Whi l e t hi s Cour t need not deci de whether t he

29 I ndeed, obj ect ors t o the pr oposed amendment t o Rul e41( b) , see supr a not e 13, have ar gued that a war r ant t hatpermi t t ed l aw enf orcement t o r emotel y search comput ers atunknown l ocat i ons woul d vi ol ate the Four t h Amendment ’ spar t i cul ar i t y r equi r ement . See, e. g. , Wr i t t en St at ement of t he



38/39

[38]

par t i cul ar i t y requi r ement was met her e, i t not es t hat despi t e

t he di f f i cul t y hi ghl i ght ed by t he gover nment , at l east t wo

cour t s have det er mi ned t hat t hi s preci se war r ant was

suf f i ci ent l y par t i cul ar t o pass const i t ut i onal must er . See

Uni t ed St ates v. Epi ch, No. 15- CR- 163- PP, 2016 WL 953269, at *2

( E. D. Wi s. Mar . 14, 2016) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi chaud, No. 3: 15-

cr - 05351- RJ B, 2016 WL 337263 at *4- *5 ( W. D. Wash. J an. 28,

2016) . But cf . I n r e War r ant t o Sear ch a Tar get Comput er at

Premi ses Unknown, 958 F. Supp. 2d at 755- 58 (warr ant t o

“sur r ept i t i ousl y i nst al l [ ] sof t war e desi gned . . . t o ext r act

cer t ai n st or ed el ect r oni c r ecor ds” f r om “an unknown comput er at

an unknown l ocat i on” di d not sat i sf y Four t h Amendment

par t i cul ar i t y r equi r ement ) .

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on t he f or egoi ng anal ysi s, t he Cour t concl udes t hat

t he NI T War r ant was i ssued wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on and t hus was

voi d ab i ni t i o. I t f ol l ows t hat t he r esul t i ng sear ch was

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 ches ar e pr esumpt i vel y unr easonabl e, and the

good- f ai t h except i on i s i nappl i cabl e, t he evi dence must be

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

i s GRANTED.

Cent er f or Democracy & Technol ogy Bef ore t he J udi ci al Conf erenceAdvi sor y Commi t t ee on Cr i mi nal Rul es 2, Oct . 24, 2014.



39/39

SO ORDERED.

/ s/ Wi l l i am G. YoungWI LLI AM G. YOUNGDI STRI CT J UDGE


Documents

Order on Motion to Suppress in Playpen Case