82 F.4th 614
8th Cir.2023Background
- Lindell (MyPillow CEO) publicized theories about 2020 election software; unauthorized forensic images of Mesa County election servers were published, prompting state and federal investigations.
- FBI agents, pursuant to a magistrate-issued warrant (investigating identity theft, intentional damage to a protected computer, and conspiracy), seized Lindell’s cell phone on Sept. 13, 2022.
- Lindell sued the United States seeking declarations of constitutional violations, return of his phone and its data under Rule 41(g), a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction barring government use of the data, and related relief.
- The district court denied Lindell’s TRO/preliminary injunction and declined equitable jurisdiction over the return‑of‑property claim; Lindell appealed.
- This panel affirmed denial of the preliminary injunction, held the search warrant was not a general warrant, but reversed the district court’s refusal to consider equitable relief as to long‑term retention of the phone and all its data and remanded for a prompt balancing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preliminary injunction to stop investigation and prohibit use of seized data | Lindell: investigation and seizure violate First, Fourth, Fifth Amendment rights; immediate return and injunction necessary | Gov’t: request is overbroad and seeks ultimate relief; injunction would improperly interfere with criminal investigation | Denied on abuse‑of‑discretion review; affirmation of district court’s denial |
| 2. Equitable jurisdiction to order immediate return of phone (Rule 41(g)) | Lindell: callous disregard, irreparable harm, privileged/business data on phone justify return | Gov’t: magistrate found probable cause; courts should not restrain investigations; ongoing evidentiary need justifies retention | District court declined; appellate court reversed in part and remanded to permit a hearing to balance government interest vs. owner’s right regarding long‑term retention |
| 3. Fourth Amendment: warrant was a general warrant | Lindell: warrant authorized an impermissibly broad, blanket search of all phone data | Gov’t: warrant specifically identified offenses and categories of evidence; filter protocols were used | Warrant upheld as sufficiently particular; not a general warrant |
| 4. Lawfulness of continued retention of phone/data absent charges | Lindell: indefinite retention infringes privacy, may include privileged material; government must justify keeping non‑contraband property | Gov’t: may retain property for ongoing evidentiary/authentication needs; Rule 41 permits copying ESI | Remanded: court could not determine adequacy of government justification from record; ordered prompt hearing to decide whether retention is reasonable and whether alternatives suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (courts must consider public consequences when granting injunctions)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones implicate extensive privacy interests; warrants required for searches)
- Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689 (11th Cir. 2022) (describing the exacting test for equitable jurisdiction over seized property)
- Black Hills Inst. of Geological Research v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 967 F.2d 1237 (8th Cir. 1992) (equitable jurisdiction is rare; balance government interest and owner’s rights regarding seized property)
- United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2011) (broad warrant descriptions can be permissible when tied to a defined investigation)
- Matter of Search of 4801 Fyler Ave., 879 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1989) (declining equitable relief where criminal proceedings provide adequate remedy)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009) (burden on party seeking preliminary injunctive relief)
- McKinney ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2015) (injunctions preserve status quo and should not grant ultimate relief)
- United States v. Premises Known as 608 Taylor Ave., Apartment 302, Pittsburgh, Pa., 584 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir. 1978) (government may not effect a de facto forfeiture by indefinite retention of property)
- Mr. Lucky Messenger Serv., Inc. v. United States, 587 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1978) (long delays in returning seized property without justification may implicate constitutional concerns)