United States v. Mark Ringland
966 F.3d 731
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Google (Gmail) used automated hash-based scanning to detect child pornography and, pursuant to federal reporting requirements, uploaded suspected files from Ringland’s accounts to NCMEC; Google uploaded 1,216 files from mringland69 and reported it viewed 502 of them.
- Google later identified and uploaded files from two related accounts (mringland65 and markringland65); NCMEC forwarded reports to Nebraska State Police (NSP).
- NSP Investigator C.J. Alberico obtained warrants to search mringland69, then mringland65 and markringland65, based on Google/NCMEC reports; subsequent searches, arrest, and statements produced additional evidence.
- Ringland moved to suppress, arguing Google (and alternatively NCMEC) acted as government agents performing warrantless searches and that the good-faith exception did not apply.
- A magistrate judge and the district court found Google was not a government agent, concluded Investigator Alberico viewed only files Google had already viewed, and alternatively held the Leon good-faith exception applied.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: applying the private-search doctrine, it held Google’s scans were private searches and that the officers did not exceed the scope of those private searches; the court did not resolve whether NCMEC acted as a government agent.
Issues:
| Issue | Ringland's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Google acted as a government agent when it scanned Ringland’s Gmail and reported files to NCMEC | Google was effectively compelled by statutory reporting duties and thus acted as a government agent | Google acted voluntarily for private business interests; reporting obligation alone does not make it a state actor | Google was a private actor; private-search doctrine applies (no state action) |
| Whether NCMEC acted as a government agent or expanded Google’s private search | NCMEC reviewed/uploaded files and thereby conducted a government search exceeding Google’s scope | NCMEC merely forwarded reports; district court found NCMEC did not provide Investigator Alberico additional viewed files relied upon in warrants | Court declined to decide NCMEC’s agency definitively but held investigator’s warrants did not rely on any NCMEC-expanded review |
| Whether Investigator Alberico’s searches exceeded the scope of Google’s private search | Investigator viewed files Google had not viewed, thus expanding the search | Investigator only reviewed the same files Google had already viewed | Investigator did not exceed the scope of Google’s private search; searches lawful |
| Whether the Leon good-faith exception applies if earlier searches were unlawful | Good-faith exception should not save unlawful warrantless searches | Officers reasonably relied on signed warrants; Leon applies | Alternatively, the court held Leon would apply, though it found the searches lawful on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevenson, 727 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2013) (reporting requirement alone does not transform an ESP into a government agent)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (government may lawfully examine materials previously subjected to a private search so long as it does not exceed the private search’s scope)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (private action becomes state action when government directs or controls the search)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (limitations on third-party doctrine for long-term location data; distinguished here)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Miller, 152 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 1998) (officers may perform the same search as a private party so long as they do not exceed its scope)
- United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012) (reporting obligation alone does not render an ESP a government agent)