United States v. Galpin
720 F.3d 436
2d Cir.2013Background
- Defendant James R. Galpin, Jr., a registered sex offender, was investigated after tips and surveillance showed teenage boys visiting his home and a MySpace posting linking Galpin to a 13‑year‑old; investigators learned Galpin had not registered the “Medic Guy” internet identifier as required by N.Y. Correct. Law § 168‑f(4).
- A warrant issued to search Galpin’s residence, person, vehicles, and electronic devices authorizing seizure of broad categories of computer hardware, storage media, records, passwords, and “photographs depicting sexual conduct by a child,” and generally for evidence of violations of state Penal Law or federal statutes.
- Forensic examiners imaged and reviewed Galpin’s hard drive and other media; they opened files and played videos to determine content and discovered child‑pornography images.
- Galpin moved to suppress, arguing lack of probable cause for child‑pornography search and that the warrant was an impermissible general warrant; the government argued plain view and good faith.
- The district court held the warrant was facially overbroad and that probable cause to search for child pornography was lacking, but concluded the warrant was severable and that the pornographic images were lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine; Galpin pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Galpin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrant was sufficiently particular | Warrant and affidavit established probable cause to search computers for evidence related to internet use and luring; search of devices was proper. | Warrant authorized an impermissible general search and lacked probable cause to search for child pornography. | Warrant facially overbroad; no probable cause for child‑pornography search (affirmed). |
| Whether overbroad warrant is severable | Valid portions (registration offense) can be severed; evidence from those parts admissible. | Warrant clauses are not meaningfully severable; valid parts are tangential to sweeping search. | Remanded: severability analysis inadequate; district court must apply multi‑step test and develop record. |
| Whether pornographic images were lawfully seized under plain view | Examiner’s opening of files was directed to registration evidence; images were inadvertently observed and immediately incriminating. | Opening and viewing files exceeded scope of any valid warrant authorization; plain view inapplicable. | Remanded: plain view determination requires fuller factual record on scope/methods of authorized search. |
| Whether good‑faith (Leon) exception saves the search | Officers reasonably relied on the warrant; exclusion inappropriate. | Warrant was so facially deficient and officers intentionally searched beyond scope, so reliance was unreasonable. | Remanded: district court did not rule on Leon; good‑faith applicability unresolved and requires further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (particularity requirement prevents general warrants)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must itself be particular; supporting affidavit cannot cure warrant defects)
- United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.) (overbroad warrants and limits on severability)
- United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir.) (adopted step‑by‑step severability/redaction methodology)
- United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. en banc) (digital searches risk becoming general warrants; need heightened particularity)
- United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (computer warrants must specify type of electronic evidence sought)