460 F. App'x 157
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Karrer investigated after Neopets alerted inappropriate communications from a 37-year-old user; Bard linked Neopets activity, Karrer’s MySpace, and an IP address to a Pittsburgh residence.
- On May 13, 2008, Bard sought a warrant to search for unlawful contact with a minor under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6318, seeking broad computer-related items and devices.
- Magistrate issued a warrant to search and seize all computer-related items and cell phones, incorporated the seven-page affidavit, specified a Nov 2007–May 2008 time frame, and included language referencing evidence of a crime as to unlawful contact with a minor.
- During execution, officers found a computer and a Motorola KLM phone; phone was searched, a photo depicting a minor sexual scenario was found; Karrer consented to view CD images, leading to a second search warrant for child pornography.
- Karrer admitted to acts against his four-year-old niece; evidence from the computer, phone, and CD led to federal charges; suppression denied; Karrer pled guilty to Count 3 (possession of child pornography) while reserving the right to appeal the warrant challenges; Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant was a general warrant | Karrer: warrant lacked meaningful limits. | Karrer: broad, unbounded search power. | No; warrant sufficiently limited by device types and statutory scope. |
| Whether the warrant was overbroad | Karrer: broad devices/files to be searched exceed probable cause. | Karrer: probable cause supports search of computer/cell tech. | No; totality of circumstances supported probable cause and permissible breadth. |
| Whether referencing child pornography in the warrant tainted scope | Karrer: erroneous reference as improper; could broaden search. | Karrer: harmless error; evidence still valid. | Redacting the reference would not change outcome; plain view applied. |
| Whether the plain-view exception applied to the cell-phone images | Government: plain view allowed seizure of child-pornography found during lawful search. | Karrer: challenged search legality? | Plain view satisfied; image immediately apparent as child pornography; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006) (warrant must describe with particularity; overbreadth requires suppression of improperly seized items)
- United States v. Christine, 687 F.2d 749 (3d Cir. 1982) (warrant must describe items with sufficient particularity)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965) (broad statutes may render warrants invalid; distinctions noted)
- Marcus v. Search Warrants of Prop. at 104 E. Tenth St., Kan. City, Mo., 367 U.S. 717 (1961) (broad or vague statutes; distinguishable from § 6318)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011) (broad search of hard drive may be permissible; protocol not required in warrant)
- United States v. Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars and Fifty-Seven Cents, 307 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2002) (upholding broad search where legitimate interests and scope present)
- United States v. Menon, 24 F.3d 550 (3d Cir. 1994) (plain-view doctrine in computer searches; scopes vary by case)
- United States v. Vasquez De Reyes, 149 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 1998) (footnotes note exceptions to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)