United States v. Hagood
5:13-cr-00393
N.D. Cal.Jun 26, 2014Background
- Defendant Hagood is charged with possession and distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B).
- The FBI used a packet-sniffing tool (Commview) to identify the user behind the Gigatribe account, locating IP address information.
- An administrative subpoena to AT&T yielded records linking the IP address to Hagood during the relevant download period and provided his home address.
- The FBI sought and obtained a search warrant for Hagood's home based in part on the likelihood that child pornography is not easily deleted, and the warrant was executed on November 18, 2011 resulting in seizure of thousands of images/videos.
- Hagood challenges steps 2 (IP address discovery) and 5 (the warrant application) of the government's investigative process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hagood had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address | Hagood relied on GigaTribe privacy promises | GigaTribe policy and scope meant no IP privacy | No reasonable expectation of privacy in IP address |
| Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause | The affidavit relied on stale information and overbreadth | Affidavit linked to collector characteristics; probable cause shown | Warrant supported by probable cause |
| Whether the procurement and use of the IP address violated Fourth Amendment standards regarding breadth/staleness | Information too stale and overbroad | Affidavit tied to defendant and collector profile; acceptable under standards | Not stale; warrant not overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (general Fourth Amendment standard for searches involving privacy expectations)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) (IP addresses analogized to outside of a letter; monitoring akin to pen register)
- United States v. Rabe, 848 F.2d 994 (9th Cir. 1988) (basis for expert testimony linking facts to specific defendant in collector cases)
- United States v. Pappas, 592 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2010) (supports using collector characteristics with linked facts)
- United States v. Weber, 923 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussed 'collector' description and its foundation)