2 F.4th 1085
8th Cir.2021Background:
- Swiss authorities notified the FBI that an Arkansas IP address was distributing child pornography; FBI traced it to Matthew Fee, who and his fiancée identified Joseph Keck as a likely user.
- Keck, a long-haul trucker with a prior child-pornography conviction, stayed intermittently at the Fees’ home; Fees consented to seizure of their devices, which yielded nothing.
- FBI learned another jurisdiction was investigating Keck and, after advice from supervisors and legal counsel, agents waited at the Fees’ residence to seize Keck’s electronic devices from his van without a warrant to prevent destruction.
- Keck handed over multiple devices (after initially providing only some), then agents obtained a warrant and searched the devices, discovering thousands of child-pornography files and multiple file-sharing accounts tied to Keck.
- Keck was charged with five child-pornography offenses, moved to suppress the seized evidence (denied by the district court under several Fourth Amendment theories), was convicted on all counts, and sentenced to 300 months; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Keck's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless seizure of electronic devices from Keck’s van violated the Fourth Amendment | The warrantless seizure was unconstitutional and no exception justified it | Automobile-exception and other doctrines permitted seizure because agents had probable cause and devices were in a readily mobile vehicle | Seizure lawful under the automobile exception; affirmation of denial of suppression |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for attempted distribution of child pornography | Evidence did not prove attempted distribution beyond a reasonable doubt | Installed file-sharing program, shared passwords, and thousands of pornographic files supported a finding of attempted distribution | Evidence sufficient; conviction for attempted distribution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (establishes the automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (automobile exception extends to containers within vehicles when probable cause exists)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (distinguishes cell-phone searches incident to arrest; discussed in electronic-search context)
- United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2017) (Eighth Circuit precedent on automobile-exception analysis)
- United States v. Shackleford, 830 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2016) (categorical application of automobile exception where probable cause exists)
- United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2004) (upholding seizure of electronics under automobile-exception theory)
- United States v. McCoy, 847 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression motions)