United States v. Aron Lichtenberger
786 F.3d 478
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lichtenberger lived with his girlfriend Karley Holmes; he was arrested on an outstanding sex-offender registration warrant and removed from the home.
- After his arrest, Holmes bypassed the laptop password, opened folders (including a folder labeled "private") and discovered hundreds of images she believed to be child pornography.
- Holmes showed some images to her mother, then called police; Officer Huston returned and asked Holmes to boot the laptop and show him the images in the kitchen.
- Holmes navigated folders and clicked thumbnails; Huston viewed a few images, concluded they were child pornography, and then seized the laptop and other electronic devices without a warrant.
- Lichtenberger moved to suppress the laptop evidence; the district court granted suppression finding Holmes acted as a government agent when she reopened and navigated the laptop at Huston’s direction.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that under the private-search doctrine (United States v. Jacobsen) Huston lacked the "virtual certainty" that his review would reveal nothing beyond what Holmes had already seen given the extensive privacy interests in laptops (informed by Riley v. California).
Issues
| Issue | Lichtenberger's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the private-search doctrine permits Officer Huston’s warrantless review of the laptop after Holmes’ private search | Holmes acted as a government agent when she reopened/navigated the laptop at Huston’s direction, so Fourth Amendment applies and the review was a warrantless search | The officer’s review was a permissible follow-on under the private-search doctrine (Jacobsen): police may verify evidence discovered in a private search | The review exceeded the scope of the private search; suppression affirmed |
| Whether Jacobsen’s scope test allows police to view electronic devices shown by a private party without a warrant | A laptop in a shared home has heightened privacy; agent-like conduct by Holmes made the search unconstitutional | Jacobsen allows verification so long as officers have near certainty they will find only what the private search revealed | Jacobsen governs but requires "virtual certainty"; here that threshold was not met due to laptop’s vast data and uncertain files |
| Whether Allen (refusing Jacobsen extension to residences) bars application of the private-search doctrine to laptops in a home | Allen’s protection for residences prevents applying Jacobsen to a laptop located in a shared home | The case is distinguishable: officer did not search the home itself; Jacobsen can apply to electronic devices shown in a common area | Allen does not categorically bar Jacobsen here; court applied Jacobsen but found its scope test failed |
| Whether Riley’s privacy analysis affects the private-search doctrine’s application to electronic devices | Laptops (like cell phones) magnify privacy interests, making warrantless searches less likely to be permissible | The government’s interest in immediate on-site verification was minimal here; Riley counsels caution but does not directly change Jacobsen | Riley’s reasoning strengthens requirement of virtual certainty; lack thereof supports suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (private-search doctrine; government may follow a private search only within its scope)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (electronic devices hold vast, varied, and long‑term private data; searches generally require a warrant)
- United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1997) (declined to extend Jacobsen to searches of residences/motel rooms)
- United States v. Bowers, 594 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2010) (upheld after-occurring police review of a photo album where private search had left little doubt about contents)
- United States v. Williams, 354 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2003) (rejected Jacobsen where police search exceeded scope of landlord’s private inspection)
- United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (police exceed scope when they examine closed digital containers not opened by private searchers absent substantial certainty of contents)
- United States v. Tosti, 733 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2013) (after-occurring search permissible where record showed detectives viewed the exact same images a private party had seen)