United States v. Mauricio Aguilera
16-10380
| 9th Cir. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- In 2009, Aguilera’s cell phone was seized incident to arrest for drug conspiracy and possession; it was later returned under a written letter agreement allowing the government to create "an exact duplicate, or mirror image, of the data" but forbidding examination of that copy without a future court order.
- The government sent the phone to a forensic lab where analyst Ronald Posadas performed a "logical acquisition" using a read-only Cellebrite device and conducted "spot checks" to verify extractions.
- Posadas could not perform a full logical extraction of text messages and instead preserved them by taking manual screenshots.
- The government later obtained a warrant to search the copied data, discovered incriminating photos of cocaine bricks, and used those photos at trial; text messages were not presented to the jury.
- Aguilera moved to suppress, arguing the government exceeded the letter agreement and violated the Fourth Amendment (post-Riley). The district court denied suppression; this Court reviewed and affirmed after an evidentiary remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government exceeded written agreement by creating/using a mirror image and conducting spot checks | Aguilera: agreement allowed only blind extraction; any examination/search of the copy violated the agreement | Government: creating a mirror image with a walled-off forensic analyst using read-only tools and limited verification did not constitute a prohibited search | Court: Agreement reasonably read to permit mirror-image duplication with verification by insulated analyst; no clear error in district court's factual findings |
| Whether spot-checking/verification constituted a "search or examination" under the agreement | Aguilera: spot-checks are meaningful review/search prohibited by agreement | Government: spot-checks were mere verification to ensure successful extraction, not substantive examination | Court: Verification did not amount to prohibited search; district court’s characterization upheld |
| Whether manual screenshots of text messages violated the agreement when automated extraction failed | Aguilera: screenshots were an unauthorized examination of data on the returned phone | Government: screenshots were preservation measures necessary when logical extraction failed; analyst was insulated | Court: District court implicitly rejected Aguilera’s claim; factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Fourth Amendment rights (post-Riley) were violated by government actions absent a warrant for phone search | Aguilera: warrantless examination exceeded agreement and infringed Riley privacy protections | Government: actions were consistent with agreement and performed by insulated forensic personnel; later warrant obtained for copied data | Court: No Fourth Amendment violation found under the record; suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (smartphone searches generally require warrant)
- United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (recommendation to use insulated forensic personnel to segregate responsive data)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (reasonable-person interpretation of search scope)
- United States v. Mines, 883 F.2d 801 (9th Cir. 1989) (clear-error standard for reviewing factual findings denying suppression)
- United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2003) (factfinder’s choice between permissible views is not clearly erroneous)