United States v. Arumugam
2:19-cr-00041-RSL
W.D. Wash.Mar 10, 2020Background
- Defendant Murugananandam Arumugam is charged with receipt and possession of child pornography; law enforcement used a modified eMule client called RoundUp to investigate him.
- From July 2016–April 2017 Detective Conine used RoundUp to download ~2,942 files or partial files from IP address 73.11.164.229 (Port 54494); two lengthy child‑pornography videos were described in detail in the affidavit.
- Conine obtained subscriber identity from Comcast via a warrant; Arumugam was identified as the subscriber and a residential search warrant was issued Jan. 30, 2018 and executed Feb. 1–2, 2018.
- Seized computers and storage devices contained eMule software and files depicting child pornography; defendant moved to suppress (1) evidence derived from RoundUp and (2) physical evidence/statements from the residential search.
- Defendant argued RoundUp constituted warrantless generalized surveillance/technology not in public use and that RoundUp ‘‘digitally trespassed’’ (tracer tag); he also sought a Franks hearing alleging material omissions about RoundUp’s automated operation and reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government's use of RoundUp to access files on the eMule P2P network constituted a Fourth Amendment "search" because RoundUp differs from public eMule | United States: Files in a user’s shared folder are publicly exposed; RoundUp accessed public shared files so no reasonable expectation of privacy | Arumugam: RoundUp’s modifications are not in general public use; using it for automated surveillance violated his privacy | Court: No search. Files placed in eMule "shared" folders are public; RoundUp accessed publicly shared files, so no reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Whether RoundUp’s activity amounted to a "digital trespass" (placement of a tracer tag/active intrusion on defendant’s machine) | United States: RoundUp did not alter or access private areas of defendant’s computer; eMule clients normally record connection metadata | Arumugam: RoundUp repeatedly "tagged" and monitored his computer without consent | Court: No digital trespass. The recording of connection metadata was ordinary eMule behavior; RoundUp did not invade or occupy the defendant’s computer. |
| Whether a Franks hearing is warranted for alleged omissions/misrepresentations about RoundUp’s automated operation and reliability | United States: Any omitted technical minutiae about automation/reliability were immaterial; downloaded videos were confirmed and described in affidavit | Arumugam: Affiant omitted that downloads were automated and did not disclose potential reliability problems, so affidavit may be materially false/misleading | Court: Denied. Defendant failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing; omissions were not material and reliability concerns were speculative. |
| Whether the residential search warrant was supported by probable cause (including staleness concerns given many downloads but only two described and a ~10‑month gap) | United States: Totality of circumstances — ~2,942 downloads/partials plus two detailed child‑pornography videos and defendant’s affirmative use of eMule — gave fair probability contraband would be found; nine‑month/ten‑month gap not dispositive | Arumugam: Affidavit relied on only two described videos amid thousands of downloads and the last download was ~10 months earlier; reliance on generalized collector characteristics made the evidence stale | Court: Probable cause found. The volume of downloads plus detailed video descriptions and evidence of affirmative sharing supported a fair probability that contraband would be present; staleness not fatal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (police use of device not in public use to explore details of home is a search)
- Jones v. United States, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical placement of GPS device constituted a search due to trespass/occupation)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (searches of cell phones require Fourth Amendment protection due to vast personal data)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (cell‑site location information can implicate reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant must make substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless falsehood to obtain evidentiary hearing)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause determined by totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
- United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997) (affirmed probable cause where defendant had downloaded child pornography months earlier)
- United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2013) (upheld probable cause and seizure where defendant had uploader activity months earlier)
- United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) (warrant invalid where only a single, brief access to thumbnails was insufficient to show fair probability contraband remained)