United States v. Jeffrey Harney
934 F.3d 502
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2015 the FBI took control of Playpen, a child pornography site on Tor, and ran a server that served content while deploying a network investigative technique (NIT) to identify site users.
- A magistrate in the Eastern District of Virginia authorized a 30-day warrant — based on a 33-page affidavit — allowing the NIT to send instructions to visitor computers and collect seven specific data points (including IP address) from any account that logged in with a username/password.
- The NIT identified Jeffrey Harney as a Playpen user; agents obtained his IP, got a search warrant for his home, found admissions and forensic evidence of thousands of child-pornography files, and charged him federally.
- Harney moved to suppress the evidence and for discovery of all NIT-related materials; the district court denied suppression (invoking the Leon good-faith exception) and denied broad discovery, offering limited technical materials instead.
- Harney pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography but reserved appeal of the suppression and discovery denials; the Sixth Circuit affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Harney's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NIT warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment particularity | Warrant was a general warrant because it did not specify geographic locations of searched computers | Warrant narrowly targeted only computers that logged into Playpen with credentials and described the data to be seized | Warrant sufficiently particular; good-faith reliance justified under Leon |
| Whether officers reasonably relied on the warrant despite extraterritorial effect | Reliance improper because warrant searched computers outside issuing district and targeted future account creators | Reliance proper; Moorehead supports cross-district execution and Rule 41 was later amended to authorize such warrants | Reliance reasonable; Moorehead and Rule 41 developments undermine deterrence rationale for exclusion |
| Whether government conduct (continued operation of Playpen) was so outrageous as to require suppression or dismissal | Continued operation perpetuated harm to victims and is conscience-shocking, requiring suppression | Running the site briefly was a carefully considered sting to apprehend offenders; not due-process shocking and not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m) | Operation did not amount to outrageous conduct warranting suppression or dismissal |
| Whether Harney was entitled to broad discovery of NIT materials under Rule 16 and privilege balancing | Harney needed full technical materials to show government error or misconduct and to test integrity of data | Government offered user-specific results and some NIT outputs; broad disclosure would jeopardize future investigations; Harney offered only speculation of wrongdoing | District court did not abuse discretion in denying wholesale disclosure; offered materials were adequate absent some evidence of government misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (cost-benefit suppression analysis)
- United States v. Moorehead, 912 F.3d 963 (6th Cir.) (upholding cross-district NIT warrants)
- United States v. Levin, 874 F.3d 316 (1st Cir.) (similar upholding of Playpen-related warrant particularity)
- United States v. Anzalone, 923 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (addressing continued operation of child-porn site for investigative purposes)
- United States v. Pirosko, 787 F.3d 358 (6th Cir.) (balancing test for disclosure of sensitive law-enforcement materials)
- United States v. Phillip, 948 F.2d 241 (6th Cir.) (Rule 16 materiality requires more than conclusory claims)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (defendant must show materiality to prepare defense)