United States v. Jean, 207 F. Supp. 3d 920

Background

Defendant Anthony Allen Jean was indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography allegedly downloaded from the TOR hidden-service site “Playpen.”
After Playpen’s operator was arrested, the FBI seized control of a copy of the site and relaunched it from a server in the Eastern District of Virginia for ~13 days.
With a magistrate’s warrant authorizing a Network Investigative Technique (NIT), the FBI deployed code from the Virginia server that, when a user logged in and began downloading content, caused the user’s computer to transmit identifying data (IP, MAC, hostname, OS, etc.) back to the FBI.
The FBI used the returned IP to subpoena the ISP (Cox) for subscriber records, obtain Jean’s residential address, procure and execute a search warrant at his home, seize his computer, and ultimately find child‑pornography images and statements.
Jean moved to suppress, arguing (1) the Virginia NIT warrant violated the Fourth Amendment (probable cause and particularity) and Rule 41(b) (magistrate jurisdiction); (2) the NIT searched computers outside the issuing district; and (3) any Rule 41 violation required suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion: it found probable cause and particularity adequate, held the warrant valid under Rule 41(b)(4)’s tracking-device exception, and concluded suppression was unwarranted (alternatively applying the good‑faith exception).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment — probable cause & particularity	Warrant lacked probable cause and did not particularly authorize searches outside EDVA	Affidavit and attachments provided substantial factual detail about Playpen, TOR, and the NIT; warrant described "activating computers" and the specific data to be seized	Court: Probable cause and particularity satisfied; magistrate had substantial basis to issue warrant
Rule 41(b) — magistrate jurisdiction	Warrant issued in EDVA could not authorize searches of computers located in other districts; NIT installed outside EDVA, so warrant exceeded Rule 41(b)	Warrant falls within Rule 41(b)(4) tracking‑device exception: NIT was an electronic tracking tool executed from EDVA to track intangible information; installation occurred when the code was run from the Virginia server	Court: Rule 41(b)(4) applies; magistrate had authority to issue the warrant
Remedy — suppression for Rule 41 violation	If Rule 41 violated, evidence must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree	Any Rule 41 violation was non‑fundamental; defendant cannot show prejudice or intentional disregard; alternatively, agents acted in objective good faith	Court: Even if violation existed, non‑fundamental; suppression not justified; good‑faith exception would apply
Good‑faith (Leon)	N/A — argues warrant invalid so evidence fruit of poisonous tree	Agents reasonably relied on magistrate’s warrant; no evidence they doubted warrant’s validity or probable cause	Court: Reliance objectively reasonable; Leon good‑faith exception would bar suppression

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (Sup. Ct.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in records voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Sup. Ct.) (pen‑register analogy: addressing info conveyed to third parties not protected)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct.) (probable‑cause review uses totality of circumstances; magistrate’s determination afforded deference)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct.) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558 (3d Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in IP address)
United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.) (IP addressing information analogous to pen‑register information)
United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir.) (membership in child‑porn site can supply probable cause)
United States v. Bach, 310 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir.) (no Fourth Amendment violation absent legitimate expectation of privacy)
United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (8th Cir.) (district judges may issue warrants for property outside their districts when Fourth Amendment satisfied)
United States v. Freeman, 897 F.2d 346 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing fundamental vs. non‑fundamental Rule 41 violations for suppression)