United States v. Arterbury, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1195

Background

Defendant Scott Arterbury was accused of accessing the child‑pornography site PlayPen; FBI used an E.D. Va. warrant (the PlayPen warrant) employing malware/NIT techniques to identify users, then obtained local warrants to search residences.
In an earlier prosecution (Arterbury I), the Northern District of Oklahoma granted Arterbury’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence, holding the E.D. Va. magistrate lacked authority to issue a warrant to search property outside her district and that the good‑faith exception did not apply; the government voluntarily dismissed the indictment without prejudice and its interlocutory appeal was later dismissed.
The Tenth Circuit later decided Workman, holding that evidence seized under the PlayPen warrant was admissible under the good‑faith exception to Leon, effectively overruling the legal basis for suppression in Arterbury I.
After Workman, the government re‑indicted Arterbury on the same charge. Arterbury moved to enforce the Arterbury I suppression order on collateral‑estoppel grounds and alternatively to suppress evidence and obtain a Franks hearing.
The district court considered (1) whether collateral estoppel prevents reprosecution where the prior suppression was at a pretrial stage and intervening controlling precedent (Workman) issued, and (2) whether Workman forecloses Arterbury’s suppression and Franks claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prior Arterbury I suppression order binds the government in the new prosecution (collateral estoppel)	Gov’t: May re‑prosecute; dismissal in Arterbury I was without prejudice and Workman changed controlling law	Arterbury: Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of appeal should be treated as with prejudice and collateral estoppel bars reprosecution	Denied — collateral estoppel does not bar reprosecution here; Arterbury I was dismissed without prejudice and Workman removes unfairness concerns
Whether an intervening change in law (Workman) prevents collateral estoppel	Workman is controlling and allows admission of PlayPen evidence; thus reprosecution is proper	Arterbury: Workman merely corrected law; prior ruling should still preclude reprosecution	Denied — court finds it not fundamentally unfair to reprosecute given dismissal without prejudice and absence of acquittal or prosecutorial harassment
Whether the PlayPen warrant was invalid for lack of magistrate authority under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41	Gov’t: Workman resolved that evidence is admissible under Leon’s good‑faith exception	Arterbury: E.D. Va. magistrate lacked authority; warrant void ab initio	Denied — Workman controls; good‑faith exception applies and bars suppression
Whether a Franks hearing is required for alleged deliberate/reckless omissions in the PlayPen warrant affidavit	Gov’t: Workman found PlayPen facts do not fall within Leon exceptions for reckless/false affidavit or lack of probable cause	Arterbury: Affiant recklessly omitted material facts; requests evidentiary hearing	Denied — Workman precludes Franks relief; affidavit deficiencies do not defeat good‑faith under controlling precedent

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Workman, 863 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2017) (applying Leon and holding PlayPen evidence admissible under good‑faith exception)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishing good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Oppenheimer v. United States, 242 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1916) (recognizing collateral estoppel may bar reprosecution after dismissal on the merits even where jeopardy had not attached)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (grounding criminal collateral estoppel in the Double Jeopardy Clause)
United States ex rel. DiGiangiemo v. Regan, 528 F.2d 1262 (2d Cir. 1975) (discussing due‑process basis for applying collateral estoppel to pretrial suppression rulings)
United States v. Evans, 655 F. Supp. 243 (E.D. La. 1987) (applying due‑process collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of suppression ruling)