United States v. Holcomb, 132 F.4th 1118

In January 2020, Burlington police investigated John Holcomb after a report of sexual assault involving J.J.; they obtained a warrant to seize (but not search) his electronic devices.
A second state warrant authorized a broad search for evidence on his computer, including “dominion and control” evidence without any time limit.
The digital search uncovered surveillance videos, including videos of sexual abuse of a minor (Holcomb’s daughter) from 2016, while looking through files outside the relevant time period for the original alleged assault.
State charges against Holcomb were dropped after suppression motions; federal authorities indicted him for child pornography based on videos found during the computer search.
Holcomb moved to suppress the videos, arguing the warrant was overbroad; the district court initially suppressed, then reversed itself based on good-faith reliance; Holcomb pleaded guilty reserving appeal rights.
The Ninth Circuit addressed whether the warrant and search met Fourth Amendment requirements, the applicability of the good-faith exception, and whether suppression was required.

Issue	Holcomb's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of 'dominion and control' warrant provision	Provision was overbroad and lacked particularity (no time, subject, or crime limitation)	Provision was appropriate; no clear precedent forbade it, and such language commonly used	Provision was unconstitutionally overbroad and insufficiently particular
Applicability of the good-faith exception	Officers could not reasonably believe a limitless provision was valid	Officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance due to lack of clear precedent	Good-faith exception does NOT apply under circuit precedent
Severability of the warrant	Entire search must be suppressed due to central flaw	Invalid provision is severable; evidence found may be admissible if sourced from valid provisions	Declined severability argument due to government’s failure to raise it below; suppression required
Plain view doctrine	Plain view inapplicable because search was unlawful	Officers lawfully searching computer; illicit videos were immediately apparent	Plain view does NOT apply when search conducted under a general warrant

United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 1995) (warrants lacking time, location, or crime limitations are facially overbroad and invalid)
United States v. SDI Future Health Inc., 568 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2009) (computer searches require heightened specificity; overbroad provisions render searches unconstitutional)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes the "good-faith exception" to the exclusionary rule)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (qualified immunity and good-faith reliance on warrants)
United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1986) (plain view requires lawful search; invalid if springing from general warrants)