State v. McDonnell, 297 A.3d 1114

Background

On July 12, 2019, McDonnell signed a written consent form authorizing USACIDC to search his home and seize, copy, and search electronic devices; the form said copies would be USACIDC property and he would have no privacy interest in copies, but also stated he could "withdraw my consent at any time."
Agents seized a Dell laptop and imaged (forensically copied) its hard drives between July 12–16, 2019.
McDonnell’s counsel withdrew consent by email on July 19, 2019, before agents had examined the copied data.
USACIDC later examined the copied image (Aug. 5–20, 2019) and prepared a report noting browser search terms consistent with child‑pornography searches; McDonnell was indicted.
The trial court denied suppression; the Appellate Court reversed, holding revocation of consent precluded a forensic exam of the mirror image without a warrant; the Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Appellate Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McDonnell)	Held
Did McDonnell retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital data on his laptop and in the government’s mirror‑image copy?	Consent to copy and express disclaimer in form eliminated any expectation of privacy in the copy.	Expectation of privacy attaches to the data itself (not just the device) and extends to any unexamined copy.	McDonnell had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data and in the unexamined copy.
Was the post‑withdrawal examination of the copied data a "search" under the Fourth Amendment?	No — the copy was lawfully created under consent, became government property, and examination was not a search requiring new authorization.	Yes — examining digital contents is a distinct search of private data requiring independent justification.	The examination after withdrawal was a search.
Did McDonnell’s withdrawal of consent defeat the consent‑form disclaimer that copies were USACIDC property and not subject to privacy rights?	The form’s disclaimer rendered copies government property and immune from later revocation.	The form’s unqualified right to withdraw consent applied to the entire form, so withdrawal barred subsequent examination.	Withdrawal was effective; the disclaimer was not an irrevocable waiver and did not permit post‑withdrawal searches.
Are analogies to photocopies or retained DNA samples controlling (i.e., may government examine copies made during consent after consent is revoked)?	Yes — caselaw treating paper photocopies or retained DNA as examinable supports government action.	No — digital data is qualitatively different (Riley/Carpenter); copying without exposure does not eliminate privacy.	Court rejected simple photocopy/DNA analogies for unexamined forensic images and required warrant/authority to examine post‑withdrawal.

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (digital‑data searches generally require a warrant; phones/computers are qualitatively different from physical containers)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (detailed digital records implicate heightened privacy concerns; third‑party doctrine limited)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (potential, but not actual, invasions of privacy distinguished)
Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1980) (government possession of undeveloped film does not permit inspection without warrant)
Varriale v. State, 119 A.3d 824 (Md. 2015) (consent to DNA sampling allowed indefinite retention and re‑use where consent was not limited)
McCavitt v. People, 185 N.E.3d 1192 (Ill. 2021) (Illinois Supreme Court: privacy interest in computer data extends to image copies)
United States v. Ponder, 444 F.2d 816 (5th Cir. 1971) (consent to search includes right to photocopy paper documents — cited by State as analogy)
United States v. Thomas, 818 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2016) (forensic copying and use of data relied on where material had been examined before revocation)