United States v. Edward Bishop
910 F.3d 335
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Edward Bishop shot a customer during a drug transaction and was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for discharging a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
- Police obtained and executed a warrant to search the cell phone Bishop carried during the attempted sale; the search produced incriminating evidence used at trial.
- The warrant described the place as the phone and authorized seizure of “any evidence (including all photos, videos, and/or any other digital files, including removable memory cards) of suspect identity, motive, scheme/plan along with DNA evidence of the crime of Criminal Recklessness with a deadly weapon…related to the offense of Dealing illegal drugs.”
- Bishop moved to suppress on Fourth Amendment particularity grounds, arguing the warrant was overly broad because it allowed officers to inspect every app and file and decide what fit the description.
- The district court denied suppression; Bishop appealed solely challenging the warrant’s particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bishop) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement for electronic devices | Warrant was unconstitutionally general; authorized wholesale rummaging through every file and app on the phone | Warrant was sufficiently particular because it limited searches to evidence related to the specified crimes and described the objects sought | Affirmed: warrant sufficiently particular under circumstances; search valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. United States, 456 U.S. 798 (warrant for contraband may justify searching all places where it might be hidden)
- Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (warrant may authorize searching and seizing documents broadly tied to the crime under investigation)
- Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (historical support for broad searches for concealed contraband)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell phones are functionally like filing cabinets for purposes of search considerations)
- Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603 (warrants authorizing broad searches of digital devices can be valid)
- United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988 (similar holding on digital-search particularity)
- United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476 (particularity evaluated by whether a more specific feasible alternative existed)
- United States v. Bentley, 825 F.2d 1104 (same particularity principle)