United States v. Patrick Carey
172 F.3d 1268, 1999 WL 215669, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 10370 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When law enforcement officers are executing a search warrant for computer files limited to evidence of a specific crime, and they develop probable cause to believe that files not covered by the warrant contain evidence of a different crime, they must obtain a new warrant before searching those files.
Facts:
- Patrick J. Carey was under investigation for the sale and possession of cocaine, and police had previously made controlled buys from him at his residence.
- During Carey's arrest at his apartment, officers observed a marijuana bong and what appeared to be marijuana in plain view.
- An officer told Carey he would get a search warrant if Carey refused to consent to a search of his apartment, after which Carey verbally consented and later signed a written consent form.
- Concerned that officers would damage his apartment, Carey provided instructions on where to find drug-related items.
- During the consensual search of the apartment, officers discovered quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.
- Officers also seized two computers from the apartment, believing they would either be subject to forfeiture or contain evidence of drug dealing.
Procedural Posture:
- Police obtained a warrant to search the files on the seized computers for 'names, telephone numbers, ledger receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence pertaining to the sale and distribution of controlled substances.'
- While searching the computers pursuant to the warrant, an officer discovered and downloaded numerous files containing child pornography.
- Patrick J. Carey was charged in federal district court with one count of possessing child pornography.
- Carey filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the computer search, arguing it exceeded the scope of the warrant.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress without issuing written findings.
- Carey entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Carey appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 a police officer's search of computer files for child pornography exceed the scope of a warrant authorizing a search only for evidence of drug trafficking, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Porfilio, J.
Yes, the search violated the Fourth Amendment because it exceeded the scope of the warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits general exploratory searches, and the warrant in this case was specifically limited to evidence of drug trafficking. The plain view doctrine does not apply because the incriminating contents of the computer files were not visible until the officer opened the closed files. Once the officer opened the first file and discovered child pornography, he developed probable cause for a different crime and was aware that similarly labeled files likely contained similar material. By continuing to open those files, he was no longer searching for drug evidence as authorized by the warrant but was conducting a new, warrantless search for child pornography, which was unconstitutional.
Concurring - Baldock, J.
Yes, the search was unconstitutional, but this conclusion is entirely fact-driven. The dispositive fact is the detective's testimony that after finding the first image of child pornography, he switched from his authorized search for drug-related evidence to a new search for child pornography. At that point, the search became an impermissible general rummaging, and the detective should have obtained a new warrant. Additionally, Carey's initial consent to search his apartment was limited to drugs and drug-related items, as a reasonable person would understand from the context of the conversation with the arresting officer, and did not extend to a search of his computer files for other materials.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical precedent for Fourth Amendment searches in the digital age, particularly regarding the scope of warrants for computer data. The court's rejection of the file cabinet analogy and the plain view doctrine for closed digital files signals that computers, with their immense storage capacity for private information, require a more stringent application of the particularity requirement. The ruling mandates that law enforcement must cease searching and obtain a new warrant upon developing probable cause for a crime not specified in the original warrant, thereby preventing digital searches from becoming unconstitutional 'general rummaging.' This case significantly constrains police discretion during computer searches and reinforces privacy protections for digital data.
