United States v. Hoffmann, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 120

Background

Hoffmann, a Marine, consented to a search of his barracks room and storage items during an investigation for alleged enticement/indecent liberties with children; he had invoked rights to counsel and silence earlier.
About 25 minutes into the search, after investigators began collecting digital media, Hoffmann withdrew consent; investigators nevertheless took the media and did not return it despite Hoffmann’s written revocation the next day.
Four months later a battalion commander issued a search authorization for the seized media based on an affidavit asserting an "intuitive relationship" between enticement/molestation and possession of child pornography; the affidavit did not disclose Hoffmann’s revoked consent and contained factual gaps.
Forensic analysis of the media revealed child pornography; Hoffmann moved to suppress that evidence at trial; the military judge denied suppression, citing seizure timing, inevitable discovery, and deference to the commander’s probable-cause decision.
The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on inevitable discovery grounds; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review and reversed, holding the seizure unlawful and the later authorization unsupported by probable cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Hoffmann)	Held
Was the taking of digital media a lawful seizure after Hoffmann revoked consent?	Seizure occurred after meaningful interference; investigators had lawfully collected items during consent search.	Hoffmann had withdrawn consent while items were still in his room; removal after withdrawal rendered the seizure unlawful.	Held: Seizure occurred after withdrawal and was unlawful (agents had not yet meaningfully interfered until removal).
Does the inevitable discovery doctrine admit the media evidence?	Even if consent was withdrawn, agents would have frozen the scene and sought authorization, so evidence would have been inevitably discovered.	No showing agents possessed or pursued leads guaranteeing lawful discovery; freezing requires probable cause or exigency which did not exist.	Held: Inevitable discovery not established; government failed to show evidence would inevitably have been discovered lawfully.
Did the commander have probable cause to authorize the later search of the seized media?	Commander’s authorization was supported by affiant’s training-based nexus and other investigatory facts; deference to magistrate appropriate.	Affidavit lacked a nexus tying Hoffmann’s street enticement to possession of child pornography and omitted exculpatory/critical facts; no substantial basis for probable cause.	Held: Authorization lacked a substantial basis for probable cause; the affidavit’s intuition-based nexus was insufficient.
Is the admission of the child pornography harmless error?	(Implicit) Other evidence supported convictions; error should be harmless.	Admission of images was central and likely influenced panel on other charges; prejudice present.	Held: Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction set aside and item dismissed with prejudice; rehearing authorized.

Key Cases Cited

Jacobsen v. United States, 466 U.S. 109 (field-testing or other meaningful interference can constitute a seizure)
Colbert v. City of Omaha, 605 F.3d 573 (8th Cir.) (affidavit linking enticement to presence of pornography held sufficient on those facts)
Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (probable-cause analysis and the magistrate’s substantial-basis standard)
Leon v. United States, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery doctrine)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule for unlawful searches)
United States v. Dease, 71 M.J. 116 (consent withdrawal and inevitable discovery standards in military context)
United States v. Wicks, 73 M.J. 93 (burden on government to show applicability of consent exception)