United States v. Diaz
1:24-cr-00032
D.N.M.Feb 8, 2024Background
- DEA agents executed a search warrant at Francisco Diaz’s home in 2019 and seized an iPhone ("N-26").
- The government struggled to extract data from the iPhone for several years due to technical limitations but obtained new warrants as technology developed.
- Data eventually obtained from Apple’s iCloud, associated with Diaz’s Apple ID and phone number, was suspected to contain privileged attorney-client communications.
- Diaz argued that the government’s possession of this data, covering a period he was represented by counsel, violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- After a filter team was established and the government agreed not to use the iCloud data, Diaz moved to dismiss the indictment and for an evidentiary hearing.
- The court considered whether to dismiss the indictment or hold a hearing based on Sixth Amendment or supervisory powers grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted | Defense was not given all iCloud data, possible filtering by government, needs hearing to prove government has privileged communications | Provided all data, no dispute government may have privileged docs, no material fact in dispute | No hearing, as no disputed material facts; Diaz must provide log of filter errors |
| Whether seizure and review of iCloud data violated Sixth Amendment | Government purposely sought post-arrest data to access attorney-client communications, requires dismissal | No intent to access privileged data, no knowledge it would be captured, had legitimate law enforcement purpose | No per se violation; no proof of intentional intrusion or injury; no prejudice shown |
| Whether indictment should be dismissed under supervisory powers | Conduct was flagrant, egregious, dismissal needed to deter future acts | No evidence of intentional or illegal conduct, or impairment of court’s integrity | Dismissal is drastic, no basis without prejudice or illegal conduct |
| Whether further remedy is required given government’s "self-suppression" of the data | Dismissal is only appropriate sanction | Additional remedies unnecessary if prosecution won’t use data | No remedy needed; government will not use challenged data |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (Remedies for Sixth Amendment violations must be tailored to the proven injury; dismissal is inappropriate without demonstrable prejudice)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (State intrusion into attorney-client communications merits remedy only if there is actual injury to defense)
- Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (Prosecutor's intentional intrusion into attorney-client relationship is a per se violation unless justified)
- United States v. Lin Lyn Trading, Ltd., 149 F.3d 1112 (Dismissal of indictment is a disfavored and drastic remedy)