United States v. Andrew Krueger, 145 F.4th 460

Andrew David Krueger was investigated starting in January 2019 for suspected involvement in child sexual abuse material, based on online activity detected by Virginia state police.
State authorities obtained a warrant in November 2019 (based on January 2019 activity), searched Krueger’s residence, seized several electronic devices, and later found hundreds of illicit images.
Virginia prosecuted Krueger, but the charges were dismissed because the warrant application lacked a proper affidavit; the devices remained in state custody.
Federal officials took over the case, obtained forensic copies of the devices (still held by the state), and received a new federal search warrant in September 2022 based solely on the January 2019 activity.
Krueger moved to suppress this evidence, arguing both probable cause was stale and that there was unreasonable delay in seeking the federal warrant; the district court denied the motion.
After a conditional guilty plea, Krueger appealed the suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause in Jan. 2019 was too stale for a Nov. 2019 search warrant ("staleness").	Evidence from Jan. 2019 was too old to justify searching in Nov. 2019; possible innocent/incidental encounter.	Probable cause was not stale, as collectors of child sexual abuse material keep it for long periods; digital evidence persists.	Stale claim rejected; continued probable cause based on collector inference and digital persistence.
Whether federal agents delayed unreasonably in seeking a warrant after state seizure in Nov. 2019.	Three-year gap between seizure and federal warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.	Delay was irrelevant—state (not federal) officials held the property; federal delay didn’t affect possessory interest.	Unreasonable delay claim rejected; delay by federal agents had no effect on the length/state of the seizure.

United States v. Bosyk, 933 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019) (establishes collector inference and staleness doctrine for child pornography warrants)
United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2010) (approves search warrants despite substantial time gaps in child pornography cases)
United States v. Pratt, 915 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (discusses impact of unreasonable delay in retaining seized property)
United States v. Ebert, 61 F.4th 394 (4th Cir. 2023) (explains that digital evidence can persist and be recoverable long after ostensible deletion)
United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) (standards of review for motions to suppress are de novo for law, clear error for facts)
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (reasonable duration of property seizure under the Fourth Amendment)