United States v. Joseph Schesso
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19256
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Schesso’s residence was searched under a state warrant authorizing an off-site electronic search of all computer equipment and digital storage devices.
- Digital forensics revealed 3,400 images and 632 videos of commercial child pornography, including material linked to the eDonkey upload.
- A camera memory card connected to a computer yielded six deleted images of Schesso’s niece, leading to a second state warrant for related items.
- Schesso moved to suppress all evidence as fruits of an illegal first search; the district court granted suppression for the searches and inculpatory statements.
- The government appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the suppression ruling and the good-faith standard, with deference to probable-cause findings by the state judge.
- The court held the warrant was not facially overbroad, that absence of CDT III protocols did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the good-faith exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause for the warrant to search Schesso’s digital equipment? | Schesso: probable cause supported broader search of all devices; uploading evidence ties to more materials. | United States: probable cause exists; warrant not overbroad given context and network conduct. | Probable cause supported the broad search. |
| Did the absence of CDT III search protocols render the warrant unconstitutional? | Schesso: protocols required to prevent over-seizing of data. | United States: protocols are non-binding guidance; not constitutionally required in this case. | No Fourth Amendment violation; protocols not binding here. |
| Does the good-faith exception apply despite CDT III concerns? | Schesso: government should be barred by bad faith in omitting protocols. | United States: reliance on the state-court warrant was reasonable. | Good-faith exception applies; suppression not warranted. |
| Is suppression appropriate due to forum choice or other non-binding CDT III factors? | Schesso: state court warrant procedure is not controlling; federal standards apply. | United States: forum choice is permissible; Fourth Amendment applies equally to state and federal courts. | No suppression based on forum choice; warrants valid under applicable standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause: fair probability standard)
- United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (probable cause inference for downloading/receiving child pornography)
- United States v. Kelley, 482 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (reasonable inference of collectors of child pornography)
- United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997) (reasonable to infer collector profile from conduct)
- United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (warrants describing generic categories may be valid)
- United States v. Krupa, 658 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding broad search with substantial cross-evidence)
- United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2009) (broad warrant coverage over multiple digital devices)
- Tamura, 694 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1982) (warning against wholesale seizure beyond warrant scope)
- United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. (CDT III), 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (concern with over-seizing electronic data; guidelines discussed)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (good-faith reliance and forum considerations)