United States v. Apple Macpro Computer Apple Ma
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4874
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Law enforcement executed a valid search warrant at Doe’s residence and seized an iPhone 5S, an iPhone 6 Plus, a Mac Pro, and two encrypted external hard drives; some devices were password-protected or encrypted.
- Forensic examiners accessed the Mac Pro (password recovered) and found one suggestive image, browser logs tied to child‑exploitation groups, and evidence that downloads (identified by hash values) of child pornography had been stored on the encrypted external drives.
- Doe provided passwords for the iPhones but refused to provide passwords to decrypt the external hard drives; he later entered incorrect passwords at a forensic exam and claimed he could not remember the hard‑drive passwords.
- A Magistrate Judge issued an All Writs Act order requiring Doe to produce the seized devices in a fully unencrypted state (Decryption Order); Doe moved to quash on Fifth Amendment grounds and the Magistrate denied the motion (Quashal Denial).
- Doe did not appeal the Quashal Denial, and after he failed to decrypt the external drives the Magistrate and then the District Court held him in civil contempt and ordered incarceration until compliance; Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Doe's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to issue the Decryption Order | Magistrate lacked jurisdiction; government should have proceeded via grand jury/subpoena, not All Writs | All Writs Act may be used to effectuate a valid Rule 41 search warrant; order was necessary and appropriate to effectuate the warrant | Magistrate had jurisdiction; All Writs Act order was a proper means to effectuate the warrant (affirmed) |
| Whether the Decryption Order violated the Fifth Amendment (act‑of‑production privilege) | Compelled decryption is testimonial and protected; producing passwords would incriminate Doe | Foregone-conclusion doctrine applies: govt already knew existence, possession, and authenticity of files and that Doe could access them | Magistrate did not plainly err; foregone-conclusion exception applies given facts, so no Fifth Amendment violation in this record |
| Whether the contempt finding was proper given Doe’s claim he forgot passwords | Doe asserted inability to comply (memory failure) | Government presented witnesses and evidence that Doe knew and had used the passwords; defendant bears burden to show impossibility | District Court did not abuse discretion; contempt finding and coercive custody upheld |
| Standard of review for appellate review of unpreserved challenges to the Decryption Order and Fifth Amendment ruling | Doe sought plenary review | Appellate review limited: subject‑matter jurisdiction plenary; other challenges reviewed for plain error because Doe failed to preserve objections | Court exercised plenary review on jurisdiction; plain‑error review on unpreserved merits/Fifth Amendment claims and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (All Writs Act permits orders necessary to effectuate court’s jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (act‑of‑production doctrine and foregone‑conclusion exception)
- Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (testimonial requirement for Fifth Amendment)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Mar. 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.) (compelled decryption found testimonial; govt failed foregone‑conclusion showing)
- United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (contempt proceedings generally do not reopen merits of underlying order; burden on contemnor to show impossibility)
- Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 500 F.3d 322 (3d Cir.) (All Writs Act review principles)