United States v. George Jarman
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1813
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007–08 a computer-repair shop owner (Collins) and employee observed file names and a grainy video suggesting child pornography on a hard drive from a customer identified as George Jarman; Collins later gave the hard drive to the FBI.
- FBI agents (SA Tedder and others) worked with DOJ prosecutors to prepare a search-warrant affidavit for Jarman’s residence; a magistrate issued the warrant in December 2008 and FBI agents seized computers and drives.
- A taint team screened seized data (because Jarman was an attorney) and completed its review in eight months; the prosecution team and CART completed forensic review by 23 months after seizure and found child‑pornography images.
- Jarman moved to suppress, alleging the affidavit contained false or reckless statements and material omissions (seeking a Franks hearing); the district court held two Franks hearings and denied suppression, applying the good‑faith exception.
- Jarman also argued the Government’s 23‑month post‑seizure review violated the Fourth Amendment and Rule 41; the district court rejected suppression. Jarman conditionally pled guilty and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jarman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the good‑faith exception | Affidavit contained knowing or recklessly false statements and omitted material facts; thus exclusion required | No knowing or reckless falsity or material omissions; magistrate’s issuance was objectively reasonable | Good‑faith exception applies; district court did not err in denying suppression |
| Sufficiency of probable cause in affidavit | Affidavit fails to establish probable cause once challenged statements/omissions are excised | Affidavit sufficiently grounded; defendant failed to meet burden to prove bad faith | Court upheld magistrate’s warrant and denial of suppression under good faith review |
| Delay in post‑seizure computer review (Fourth Amendment) | 23‑month review was unreasonable and warrants suppression | Delay was reasonable given complexity and taint‑team privilege screening; no bad faith; Metter is distinguishable | Delay was reasonable; no suppression warranted |
| Rule 41 violation claim | Government’s extended review violated Rule 41 | Claim was waived and, in any event, conduct complied with Rule 41 | Rule 41 claim waived; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 805 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression findings)
- United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2014) (good‑faith exception and deference to district‑court credibility findings)
- United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 1999) (review standard for officers’ reliance on warrants)
- United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2005) (exclusionary rule exception when affidavit contains knowing or reckless falsehoods)
- United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706 (5th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s burden to show bad faith in challenging affidavit)
- United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2000) (Franks framework for excising falsehoods/omissions)
- United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) (reasonableness governs method and execution of warrants)
- United States v. Syphers, 426 F.3d 461 (1st Cir. 2005) (permitting delays in computer searches due to complexity)
- United States v. Metter, 860 F. Supp. 2d 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (district court suppression for extensive, unexplained government delay)