United States v. Cote
2013 CAAF LEXIS 265
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Airman Adam Cote was convicted by general court-martial of possession of child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1; the forfeitures were later not approved.
- A search warrant issued July 1, 2008, authorized seizure of electronic devices and storage media for images of sexually exploitative minors with a 90-day on-site/off-site search limit unless extended by the Court.
- Laptops and a WD external hard drive were seized July 2, 2008; laptops were later found to contain child pornography, but the WD drive was damaged and not fully examined until 2009–2010.
- No extension of the 90-day limit was sought for the WD drive; the drive was repaired and reconstructed in 2009–2010, after which evidence was found.
- The military judge suppressed the WD-drive evidence as having been obtained outside the 90-day limit; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and this court reversed that ruling in part.
- The majority held that the 90-day limitation, though violated, imposed an obligation on the government to prove reasonableness or de minimis nature; here the government failed, so suppression was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day off-site search limitation requires suppression | Cote argues suppression is required due to warrant violation. | Government contends delay may be reasonable and not per se suppression. | Suppression proper; 90-day violation not de minimis. |
| Whether the government bore the burden to show the delay was reasonable | Burden on government to show reasonableness under circumstances. | Delay could be reasonable under Syphers-like considerations. | Government failed to prove reasonableness; evidence excluded. |
| Whether the explicit terms of the warrant carry constitutional weight | Explicit 90-day term is binding and its violation warrants suppression. | Explicit terms need not be constitutional requirements; focus is on reasonableness. | Explicit term does carry weight in this context; violation triggers heightened scrutiny. |
| Whether good-faith/exception principles apply to the search | Good-faith reliance on the warrant could preserve admissibility. | Not applicable where explicit time terms violated; suppression still warranted. | Good-faith exception does not apply to save the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Syphers, 426 F.3d 461 (1st Cir. 2005) (three-factor delay test for electronic searches)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (reasonableness standard for searches)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (deterrence-based exclusionary rule limits; attenuated negligence standard)
- United States v. Gerber, 994 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1993) (time limits are not per se constitutional requirements)
- United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532 (1st Cir. 1999) (searches must conform to warrants or recognized exceptions)