Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Keith

District Court, D. Massachusetts
980 F. Supp. 2d 33 (2013)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) acts as a government agent for Fourth Amendment purposes when operating its CyberTipline, making its warrantless review of a reported file's contents an unconstitutional search. However, evidence derived from a subsequent warrant is admissible if the warrant was supported by an independent source of probable cause, or if officers relied in good faith on the statutory scheme authorizing NCMEC's actions.


Facts:

  • On November 26, 2009, America Online (AOL) automatically identified a file in an email sent from David Keith's computer as suspect based on a match of its unique alphanumeric 'hash value' to a database of values associated with child pornography.
  • AOL, without any employee viewing the file's contents, reported the file to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) via its CyberTipline.
  • A NCMEC analyst opened and viewed the image file, concluded it was child pornography, traced the originating IP address to Keith's residence, and made a report available to Massachusetts law enforcement.
  • On July 29, 2010, employees at a Staples store in New Hampshire discovered files with filenames suggestive of child pornography on a laptop David Keith had left for repair and notified local police.
  • On August 10, 2010, Keith admitted to New Hampshire police that the laptop was his and that he had downloaded files depicting children as young as eight engaged in sexual activity.
  • A subsequent warranted search of the laptop by New Hampshire police revealed online chat messages discussing possible sexual abuse of a minor residing at Keith's home.

Procedural Posture:

  • David Keith was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with distribution and possession of child pornography.
  • Massachusetts State Police, relying on an affidavit that included information from NCMEC and a separate New Hampshire investigation, obtained a warrant to search Keith's residence.
  • The warrant was executed on September 17, 2010, resulting in the seizure of physical evidence and incriminating statements from Keith.
  • Keith filed a motion in the District Court to suppress all physical evidence and statements obtained as a result of the search.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does evidence obtained from a search warrant require suppression under the Fourth Amendment when the warrant application relied in part on information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's (NCMEC) warrantless review of an email file, and in part on information from an independent investigation?


Opinions:

Majority - O'Toole, District Judge

No, the evidence does not require suppression under the Fourth Amendment. While NCMEC acts as a government agent, and its warrantless viewing of the file's contents was an unconstitutional search, the evidence is admissible under two alternative doctrines. First, under the independent source doctrine, the information obtained from the separate investigation into the Staples laptop provided a sufficient, independent basis for the magistrate to find probable cause for the search warrant, even if the NCMEC-derived information were excised from the application. The affidavit detailed Keith's admissions to police and the discovery of suspicious chat logs on his laptop. Second, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. The officers who relied on the NCMEC CyberTipline information did so in objectively reasonable reliance on a statutory scheme established by Congress. The purpose of the exclusionary rule—to deter police misconduct—would not be served by suppressing evidence when officers acted in good faith reliance on a congressionally sanctioned investigative program.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that NCMEC, despite its status as a private non-profit, functions as a state actor subject to Fourth Amendment constraints when operating its congressionally mandated CyberTipline. The court distinguishes between a purely private action (AOL's hash-value match) and a subsequent governmental search that expands upon it (NCMEC's viewing of the file). However, the opinion significantly limits the practical effect of this finding by strongly applying both the independent source doctrine and the good-faith exception. This provides a clear roadmap for prosecutors to save evidence derived from NCMEC tips by demonstrating either an untainted, parallel line of investigation or law enforcement's reasonable reliance on the existing statutory framework.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Keith (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"