United States v. Nieto
2017 CAAF LEXIS 124
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- Appellant Nieto, a soldier, was alleged to have used his cell phone to record fellow soldiers in a latrine at FOB Azizullah; victims provided sworn statements identifying the conduct.
- CID agents seized a cell phone and a laptop from Nieto's bunk after obtaining a search authorization from a part-time military magistrate; the initial affidavit discussed only the cell phone and oral statements included an agent's generalized claim that soldiers often back up phone media to laptops.
- A later affidavit incorporated Nieto's confession to recording and an agent's experience-based assertion that perpetrators often transfer media from phones to computers; a second magistrate authorized a search of the devices.
- The cell phone produced no relevant evidence, but the laptop contained incriminating videos and images that led to additional charges and convictions at court-martial.
- Nieto moved to suppress laptop evidence, arguing the magistrates lacked probable cause tying the laptop to the crime; the military judge denied the motion and the Army Court summarily affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate had probable cause to seize Nieto's laptop | Nieto: affidavits and oral statements lacked a particularized nexus showing a fair probability that evidence would be on the laptop | Gov: facts, agent experience, victim sworn statement, location of devices on bunk, and reasonable inferences supported probable cause | Reversed — magistrate lacked a substantial basis for probable cause because no specific evidence showed transfers or storage on the laptop; generalized profiling was insufficient |
| Whether good-faith or inevitable-discovery exceptions validate laptop evidence | Nieto: exceptions do not apply because seizure was not supported by probable cause and Gov did not meet burdens for exceptions | Gov: even if magistrate erred, agents acted in good faith and/or evidence would have been inevitably discovered | Reversed — Government failed to prove either good-faith reliance or inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (modern cell phones have immense storage and privacy considerations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leedy, 65 M.J. 208 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (probable cause/nexus principles in military context)
- United States v. Hoffmann, 75 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (review standard for magistrate probable-cause determinations and exceptions)
- United States v. Clayton, 68 M.J. 419 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (nexus may be inferred; inferences must be reasonable)