56 F.4th 169
1st Cir.2022Background:
- Undercover FBI used KIK to contact a user who said he communicated with a 12‑year‑old; the user directed images and videos of the minor and sent a matching saved image.
- KIK provided IP logs; one frequent IP resolved via Comcast to a residential address on Elmwood Drive where Robert and Nicole Corleto lived and had two registered vehicles.
- FBI agent DeMann obtained a warrant to search the Elmwood Drive residence and "any vehicles registered to that address," authorizing seizure of computers (broadly defined to include smartphones) and records related to child pornography and KIK.
- Agents stopped the Corletos as they were leaving; Corleto exited holding an unlocked iPhone and handed it to DeMann, then twice volunteered the phone contained the evidence sought.
- Corleto was driven to the police station (not handcuffed), interviewed with recorded statements admitting solicitation of sexual photographs from a 12‑year‑old and again saying the material was "all right there on the phone." He moved to suppress the seized evidence and his statements; the district court denied the motion and Corleto pled guilty while preserving this appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / nexus | Warrant lacked specific nexus tying Elmwood Drive/vehicles to Corleto's conduct; relied on generalizations about child‑porn collectors | Affidavit linked KIK account to IP addresses and Comcast subscriber at Elmwood Drive and explained portable device use; training/experience supported nexus | Affidavit established a fair probability nexus; probable cause upheld |
| Particularity / overbreadth | Warrant was a general warrant; too broad in permitting seizure of many electronic devices (smartphones) without narrow limits | Warrant and attachments specifically listed premises, vehicles, and categories of electronic evidence (including smartphones) tied to KIK and child pornography | Warrant satisfied particularity; seizure of devices was appropriately constrained to evidence likely to be on portable media |
| Scope / execution of warrant (seizure from vehicle / person) | Seizure of phone required a search of his person or was unauthorized because vehicle location/occupancy not limited | Attachment A expressly included any vehicles registered to the address; Corleto already held the unlocked phone and voluntarily handed it to agent | Seizure fell within warrant scope; no impermissible search of person occurred |
| Fifth Amendment / Miranda | Statements (esp. comment about phone) should be suppressed because Miranda warnings were not given before custodial interrogation | Corleto volunteered statements at the scene before interrogation; at the station he was told he was free to leave and interview was recorded; voluntariness exception applies | Volunteered statements are admissible; Miranda not required for volunteered on‑scene comments; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (smartphone searches raise special concerns)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (cell‑site location information and privacy)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of warranted searches of containers in vehicles/homes)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (volunteered statements exception to Miranda)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation and its functional equivalent)
- United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (upholding broad computer searches in child‑pornography investigations)
- United States v. McLellan, 792 F.3d 200 (searches of electronic devices in shared residences tied to IP evidence)
- United States v. Lindsey, 3 F.4th 32 (nexus and four‑corners review of affidavits)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (waiver/forfeiture of appellate arguments)