Sennett v. United States
667 F.3d 531
4th Cir.2012Background
- Sennett is a photojournalist who covers protests and uses the pseudonym Isis; she has published photographs and posted them online since 2005.
- On April 12, 2008, Sennett received a tip and went to the Four Seasons in DC at around 2:30 a.m. to photograph a IMF protest, not intending to engage in unlawful acts.
- Video footage shows a group vandalizing the hotel lobby, causing over $200,000 in damage; Sennett did not enter the lobby and fled after the acts.
- Officer Antignano identified Sennett from hotel footage and tips from two “reliable sources,” including a DMV photo match and open-source corroboration; she allegedly used the alias ISIS.
- A search warrant for Sennett’s residence was executed on September 23, 2008, seizing items related to the IMF protest, including external drives, computers, cameras, and memory cards.
- Sennett sued the United States under the Privacy Protection Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the United States based on the suspect exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suspect exception bars PPA claims where probable cause exists | Sennett argues insufficient probable cause | US asserts probable cause supported the suspect exception | Yes; probable cause supported the suspect exception |
| Whether probable cause existed to link Sennett to the IMF protest offenses | Sennett contends innocent explanations preclude probable cause | US contends totality of circumstances supports probable cause | Yes; totality supported probable cause for suspect relation to offenses |
| Whether Sennett’s status as a photojournalist negates probable cause | Sennett argues journalism status eliminates suspicion | Occupation does not negate reasonable suspicion | No; status did not defeat probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (probable cause does not require evidence of every element)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (probable cause does not demand perfect evidence)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (yellow light for probable cause; offense not required to match observed conduct)
- Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (innocent explanations cannot negate probable cause)
- S.P. v. City of Takoma Park, 134 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 1998) (probable cause is a legal question when material facts are undisputed)
- United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2011) (probable cause assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001) (suspect exception to PPA requires probable cause)
- Citicasters v. McCaskill, 89 F.3d 1350 (8th Cir. 1996) (PPA generally forbids searches for publication-related materials)
- United States v. Booker, 612 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2010) (innocent explanations do not vitiate probable cause)