136 F.4th 1247
10th Cir.2025Background
- In 2016, an anonymous user uploaded child pornography to Chatstep, an internet chatroom, which was detected by Microsoft’s PhotoDNA software and reported to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).
- NCMEC traced the uploads to Guy Rosenschein in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and referred the information to local law enforcement, leading to the execution of search warrants on Rosenschein's home.
- Law enforcement recovered approximately 21,000 images and videos of child pornography from Rosenschein’s electronic devices.
- Rosenschein was indicted on federal charges of possession and distribution of child pornography and filed pre-trial motions to suppress evidence, compel discovery, and require expert reports.
- The district court denied his motions, after which Rosenschein pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Fourth Amendment to private search (PhotoDNA/Chatstep) | Actions by Microsoft and Chatstep constituted government searches requiring a warrant | Microsoft and Chatstep were not government agents and acted for private interests | Chatstep and Microsoft were not government agents; Fourth Amendment does not apply |
| Reasonable expectation of privacy in uploaded images | Had a reasonable expectation of privacy in images uploaded, potentially in password-protected chats | No expectation of privacy when sharing illegal images in a public or reportable chatroom with strangers | No reasonable expectation of privacy recognized |
| Validity of search warrant (Franks claim) | Search warrant affidavit contained false/misleading statements and material omissions | Affidavit was factually accurate, omissions/materiality not sufficient to negate probable cause | Affidavit sufficient, no Franks violation; warrant and resulting evidence upheld |
| Denial of motions to compel discovery/require expert reports | Discovery of internal computer programs and expert reports were necessary for a fair trial | Proper access given through testimony; expert reports not required for suppression hearing | District court acted within discretion; denial of motions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches by private parties not acting as government agents)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standard for suppressing evidence based on false or misleading warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no expectation of privacy for information knowingly made public)
- United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292 (definition of governmental agent and private party searches under Fourth Amendment)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due process violation requires showing of bad faith where evidence is lost by non-governmental parties)