United States v. Andrew Moorehead
912 F.3d 963
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2015 FBI seized and operated a copy of Playpen (a Tor-hosted child-pornography site) from a government server after obtaining administrative control; Tor concealed users’ IP addresses.
- FBI sought and obtained a warrant from an Eastern District of Virginia magistrate to deploy a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) to collect identifying data (IP, host name, MAC, etc.) from any user or administrator who logged into Playpen.
- The NIT identified a user "logidragon321," traced to an IP subscribed at the Moorehead residence; a residential warrant executed in September 2015 yielded Moorehead’s admissions and seized computer evidence.
- Moorehead was indicted for receipt and possession of child pornography, moved to suppress evidence arguing the NIT warrant violated Rule 41(b) and the magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction; district court denied the motion.
- Moorehead pleaded guilty (reserving suppression appeal), was sentenced to 97 months, and appealed the denial of suppression; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo legal conclusions and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate exceeded Rule 41(b) territorial jurisdiction in issuing the NIT warrant | Moorehead: Warrant was invalid (void ab initio) because Rule 41 then did not authorize remote searches outside the magistrate’s district | Government: NIT falls within Rule 41 exceptions (tracking-device analogue) and, in any event, Rule 41 was later amended to expressly authorize such warrants | Court did not decide the Rule 41 merits; proceeded to good-faith analysis and affirmed under good-faith exception |
| Whether the good-faith exception bars suppression when a warrant is void ab initio due to jurisdictional defect | Moorehead: A jurisdictional defect renders the warrant void and precludes good-faith reliance; suppression required | Government: Good-faith exception applies; courts should ask whether officers reasonably relied on the magistrate’s warrant | Court: Good-faith exception can apply to warrants void ab initio; suppression not warranted here because officers reasonably relied and deterrence is minimal |
| Whether suppression would deter future Fourth Amendment violations given Rule 41 amendment | Moorehead: Suppression needed to deter widespread use against many users | Government: 2016 Rule 41 amendment now authorizes warrants like this, so suppression would not materially deter future misconduct | Held: Amendment and judicial split show lack of actionable police culpability; deterrence benefits do not outweigh costs, so exclusion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule’s purpose is deterrence; not automatic upon Fourth Amendment violation)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good-faith/attenuation analysis and focus on deterring police misconduct)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (articulated good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (applied good-faith exception where warrant record had been quashed)
- United States v. Master, 614 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2010) (good-faith exception can apply where issuing judge lacked jurisdiction)
- United States v. Workman, 863 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2017) (applied good-faith exception to NIT-style warrant)