United States v. Johnson, 93 F.4th 605

Cory Johnson was initially investigated in 2018 for trading child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online; a search of his home resulted in seizure of electronic devices containing thousands of CSAM files.
He was first indicted for distribution, but a plea agreement resulted in a conviction only for possession of child pornography and a 45-month sentence.
After sentencing, a later review of previously seized and segregated digital evidence led to the discovery of a video showing Johnson sexually abusing his minor daughter and producing CSAM.
Following this discovery, Johnson was indicted for production of child pornography and sentenced to 240 months in prison.
Johnson filed motions to suppress the new evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation and to dismiss the new indictment, arguing it was precluded by the earlier plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
4th Amendment: Review of segregated evidence	NCMEC’s post-conviction review of metadata exceeded the scope and timing authorized by 2018 warrant; was a new search	Gov’t: Review only involved already-segregated, responsive contraband; no new search and reasonable under the warrant	No 4th Amendment violation—review was of lawfully seized, responsive data within warrant scope
Plea Agreement: Bar on subsequent prosecution	Second indictment was precluded by plea agreement barring charges for any known offense relative to CSAM possession/distrib	Gov’t: Production offense not known at time of plea; agreement does not cover future-discovered or production offenses	No bar—production charge not covered by plea agreement, and gov’t lacked knowledge at time of original plea
Scope of Search Warrant (metadata)	Warrant did not specifically mention GPS/metadata, so review exceeded scope	Gov’t: Warrant’s language broad and covers metadata/GPS as contextual information for CSAM court sought	GPS and metadata were within scope of sufficiently particular digital search warrant
Timeliness of Forensic Review	2019 review untimely, as too distant from 2018 seizure and after prosecution/sentencing	Gov’t: No unreasonable delay; interest in ongoing investigation and victim identification superseded time concerns	Review within reasonable time; delay did not render examination constitutionally infirm

United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing limits on reexamination of lawfully seized digital data)
United States v. Hasbajrami, 945 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 2019) (addressing standards for digital searches and subsequent reviews)
United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter v. United States (warrant specificity in digital searches)
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant if the action is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (motivation for seizure irrelevant if search is lawfully confined by warrant)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective reasonableness controls Fourth Amendment analysis)
United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2020) (approving broad search warrants when supported by probable cause)
United States v. Miller, 430 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2005) (touchstone of Fourth Amendment is reasonableness)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing plea agreements)
United States v. Riera, 298 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (interpretation of plea agreements per contract principles)
United States v. Padilla, 186 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) (plea agreements strictly construed against the government)