United States v. Miknevich
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3824
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Miknevich was arrested for possession of child pornography after police executed a search warrant at his home and seized his computer.
- The computer contained numerous images of child pornography discovered after the warrant execution.
- Miknevich made oral and written admissions to officers following the seizure.
- He moved to suppress, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause, but the district court denied the motion, applying the Leon good faith exception.
- The district court approved the warrant based on the affidavit’s description and SHA1 value; Miknevich pleaded guilty conditionally to appeal the probable cause ruling.
- The appeal centers on whether the Pennsylvania district justice had a substantial basis for probable cause based on the file name/SHA1 evidence rather than observed contents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the affidavit establish probable cause despite not detailing viewing of the file? | Miknevich argues the affidavit lacked facts showing content and viewing; speculation cannot support probable cause. | United States contends the file name, SHA1 value, and related descriptions reasonably indicate child pornography. | Yes; affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause. |
| May magistrates infer contents from file name and SHA1 value without viewing the file? | Miknevich asserts reliance on file name/SHA1 is insufficient without viewing the contents. | Government argues descriptive file name and SHA1 value can establish probable cause even if contents are not viewed. | Descriptive file name/SHA1 can support probable cause; magistrate not required to view images. |
| What is the proper standard of review for magistrate probable cause determinations on appeal? | Miknevich contends the court should reassess probable cause de novo to some extent. | United States argues for great deference to the magistrate’s probable cause finding (substantial basis). | Court reviews for a substantial basis with great deference to the magistrate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gates, 462 F.3d 231 (1983) (probable cause is based on totality of circumstances; fair probability required)
- New York v. P. J. Video, 475 U.S. 868 (1986) (magistrate may rely on reasonably specific affidavits detailing content; need not view images)
- United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (1997) (read affidavit in its entirety; focus on content presented, not missing elements)
- United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512 (2010) (plenary review of probable cause with deference to magistrate; limit to affidavit facts)
- United States v. Tehfe, 722 F.2d 1114 (1983) (probable cause is a fluid concept; not required to have certainty)
- United States v. Conley, 4 F.3d 1200 (1993) (limits of deference in reviewing probable cause; substantial basis standard)