United States v. Kyle Bateman
945 F.3d 997
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- "Playpen" was a Tor-hidden child-pornography forum; FBI seized its server, operated a mirror site from the Eastern District of Virginia, and deployed a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) Feb–Mar 2015 to identify logged-in users.
- The EDVA magistrate issued the NIT warrant based on a 32‑page affidavit from FBI SA Douglas Macfarlane; the NIT collected identifying data (including IP addresses) from computers that logged into Playpen.
- NIT identified the Playpen user "nevernudeever" as Kyle Bateman; the government obtained a Southern District of Ohio warrant (based on an affidavit by SA Andrea Kinzig) to search Bateman’s home and seized his computer(s), recovering ~599 child‑pornography files.
- Bateman moved to suppress all evidence (arguing the NIT warrant was void outside EDVA) and sought a Franks hearing to challenge Macfarlane’s affidavit; the district court denied suppression and the Franks request.
- Bateman pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal those denials. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying circuit precedent and the Leon good‑faith exception and denying the Franks hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bateman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of NIT warrant and suppression (Rule 41/territoriality) | NIT warrant void ab initio because it authorized searches outside the issuing magistrate’s district; evidence is fruit of poisonous tree | Officers reasonably relied on a magistrate-issued warrant; Leon good‑faith exception bars suppression; affidavit supported probable cause | Affirmed. Under Moorehead/Harney, good‑faith exception applies; evidence not suppressed |
| Request for Franks hearing re: Macfarlane affidavit (alleged false statements about Playpen content/location) | Affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods/omissions material to probable cause (e.g., description of homepage, implied territorial limits) | Alleged inaccuracies are technical; no substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless falsity; omissions not material to probable cause | Denied. Bateman failed to make the Franks threshold; even omitting disputed material, affidavit still supports probable cause |
| Franks hearing re: Kinzig affidavit supporting S.D. Ohio warrant | (Raised on appeal) Should be able to challenge Kinzig affidavit | Bateman waived challenge by not seeking a Franks hearing below; district court did not err | Waived on appeal; not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moorehead, 912 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2019) (applied Leon good‑faith exception to NIT warrant challenges)
- United States v. Harney, 934 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2019) (reaffirmed sufficiency of Macfarlane affidavit and good‑faith reliance)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standards for when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing challenging affidavit veracity)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary-rule foundation)
- United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (discussion of probable cause standard)