United States v. McGrain, 6:20-cr-06113

Background

Victim reported sending numerous nude photos to Defendant's Samsung smartphone; a forensic interview implicated Defendant in sexual misconduct.
On April 4, 2020, Defendant called the police from his phone, arrived at the station in a black Dodge Caravan, claimed to have only keys and wallet, and his phone was not on his person; officers concluded the phone was likely in the vehicle.
Forensic review indicated the phone had been recently wiped and that Defendant used a specific Gmail address to back up data, supporting warrants to search his Google and Facebook accounts for deleted/backup material.
Defendant made statements at a March 27, 2020 9-1-1 response (approached officers, refused to stay, left), initiated two April 6, 2020 phone calls to police asking about arrest/attorney, and voluntarily came to the station for a custodial interview on April 6.
During the April 6 custodial interview Defendant received and waived Miranda warnings at the start, but later unequivocally requested an attorney and terminated the interview.
Procedural posture: Magistrate Judge Pedersen recommended denying suppression motions for physical and digital evidence and for statements except those made after Defendant invoked his right to counsel; objections due within 14 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence from Dodge Caravan	Warrant affidavit established probable cause to search vehicle where phone likely located	Affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the specific area of the vehicle where the phone was located	Denied — affidavit and factual circumstances supported probable cause to search the Caravan
Suppression of evidence from Samsung phone, Facebook, Google accounts	Warrant affidavits showed messages on Facebook and potential backups on Google; phone appeared wiped so cloud backups likely contain evidence	Warrant lacked probable cause to search social media/cloud accounts for alleged evidence	Denied — affidavits provided probable cause to search Facebook and Google accounts and recover phone data
Suppression of statements from March 27, 2020 9-1-1 response	N/A (Govt: encounter was noncustodial)	Statements coerced / Miranda violation because of police questioning	Denied — encounter was noncustodial; Defendant was free to leave and drove off
Suppression of two April 6, 2020 phone calls initiated by Defendant	N/A (Govt: calls were initiated by Defendant; officer did not ask incriminating questions)	Calls should be suppressed as custodial or as improper waiver/invocation of counsel	Denied — Defendant initiated calls, was not in custody for Miranda, and did not unequivocally invoke counsel during the calls
Suppression of statements from April 6 custodial interview	N/A (Govt: Miranda warnings given and waived; later invocation)	Statements should be suppressed as not voluntarily or validly waived under Miranda	Denied in part — statements admissible up to the point Defendant unequivocally requested counsel; statements after invocation are not admissible

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (particularity requirement for warrants)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (limits on scope of search to avoid general searches)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation rule)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (waiver may be inferred from course of conduct; ambiguity rule for invocation)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (standards for voluntary waiver of Miranda rights)
United States v. Rodriguez, 356 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.: custodial interrogation standards)
United States v. Jaswal, 47 F.3d 539 (2d Cir.: government burden to prove voluntary, knowing waiver)
United States v. Oehne, 698 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.: what constitutes an unambiguous request for counsel)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (statements like "maybe I should talk to a lawyer" are ambiguous and do not invoke counsel)