United States v. Gurczynski
2017 CAAF LEXIS 741
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- In January 2014 CID seized a thumb drive and other digital media from Gurczynski's home pursuant to a warrant authorizing searches for evidence related to alleged sexual abuse and communications with the alleged victim.
- Gurczynski was convicted at general court-martial in June 2014 of offenses that the original warrant targeted; sentence was later affirmed by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA).
- Over nine months after the warrant issued and five months after conviction, CID sent the seized devices to a digital forensics examiner (DFE) with a lab request (DD Form 2922) instructing the examiner to look for child pornography and communications.
- The DFE opened files on the thumb drive, observed names and thumbnails suggesting child pornography, opened a file without a new warrant, concluded it was child pornography, and then located additional child pornography on a seized computer hard drive.
- Gurczynski moved to suppress the child pornography evidence under M.R.E. 311, arguing the DFE exceeded the warrant’s scope; the military judge granted suppression, the ACCA affirmed, and the government appealed to this Court under Article 62.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Gurczynski's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of the thumb drive for child pornography was constitutionally reasonable despite being executed under a facially valid warrant issued for different offenses and executed months later | The warrant was facially valid; execution pursuant to it makes the search presumptively reasonable and the child pornography is admissible under the plain view doctrine | The DFE exceeded the warrant’s scope; the lab request impermissibly expanded the warrant and the search months after conviction was unreasonable — suppression warranted | The Court affirmed suppression: the search was constitutionally unreasonable because (1) the warrant did not mention child pornography, (2) the DFE was expressly directed to search for it, (3) the search occurred months after issuance and after Gurczynski’s conviction, so the government lacked a legitimate interest; plain view did not apply because the underlying search was unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (discussing Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (privacy interests in digital content and reasonableness balancing)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (no amount of probable cause justifies warrantless searches outside scope)
- Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (warrant procedure ensures searches are reasonable)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain view seizure doctrine explained)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (limits on scope of searches and the need for particularity)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (particularity requirement prevents general rummaging)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (reasonableness and limits on seizures)
- United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592 (warrant particularity prevents seizure of one thing under warrant describing another)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (search scope limitations and protection against general searches)