United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198

Background

On Oct. 30, 2014 Trooper Snickles found Kirkland Smith slumped in his running car; a Nextbook tablet on the passenger seat displayed an image the trooper described as sexual (possibly involving a minor). Smith was arrested for DWI and the tablet was seized and stored as evidence.
Investigator Kyle Kirby sought Smith’s consent to search the tablet on Oct. 31, 2014; Smith refused. Kirby waited 31 days and applied for a search warrant on Dec. 1, 2014; the warrant search produced numerous child‑pornography images and videos.
A federal grand jury indicted Smith on six counts of possession of child pornography. The district court denied Smith’s motion to suppress the tablet evidence; Smith pleaded guilty conditionally and was sentenced to 212 months’ imprisonment.
This Court previously remanded for a hearing to develop the record on whether the 31‑day delay before seeking the warrant was unreasonable; the district court again denied suppression after a remand hearing.
The Second Circuit majority holds the 31‑day delay unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment but declines to suppress the evidence because the delay resulted from isolated negligence and an objectively reasonable officer might not have known the delay violated the Fourth Amendment. The sentence is affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't/Kirby)	Held
Whether waiting 31 days to apply for a search warrant for a seized tablet was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment delay	31‑day delay was excessive given probable cause and the readily available facts known the day of seizure	The delay was justified by investigator’s heavy caseload, rural travel demands, and ongoing priorities; month‑long delays aren't per se unreasonable	Delay was unreasonable; length of delay and lack of specific justification weighed for Smith
Whether suppression (exclusionary rule) is required for the unreasonable delay	Evidence should be suppressed because delay violated Fourth Amendment	Suppression unwarranted because delay was isolated negligence and not deliberate, reckless, or systemic; objective good‑faith defense applies	Exclusionary rule not applied: isolated negligence and objectively reasonable officer would not necessarily have known the delay violated the Fourth Amendment
Whether sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2G2.2(b)(5) (pattern of sexual abuse/exploitation) was properly applied	Enhancement improper as alleged additional abuse of KN1 was unproven/unreliable	Government proved by preponderance that Smith abused KN1 and had prior conviction involving KN2; enhancement appropriate	District court’s finding credited KN1’s testimony; enhancement applied and not clearly erroneous
Procedural and substantive reasonableness of 212‑month sentence (including allowing KN1 to speak at sentencing)	Procedural error: unreliable, uncorroborated testimony and improper victim‑statement; substantive sentence excessive	Court may consider wide range of information at sentencing; Smith’s history and volume/severity of material supported sentence	No procedural error or substantive unreasonableness; court acted within discretion and sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (U.S. 2001) (temporary seizure pending a warrant permissible only if police diligently seek a warrant)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (temporary seizure of property for investigation subject to Fourth Amendment constraints)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (seizure occurs when government meaningfully interferes with possessory interests)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (standing and expectation of privacy principles for searches)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (trespass and privacy frameworks for searches)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones implicate heightened privacy; warrants generally required to search digital devices)
United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (digital media seizures implicate vast, intermingled private data)
United States v. Martin, 157 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1998) (delay analysis balancing length, circumstances; eleven‑day delay evaluated under factors)
United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009) (21‑day delay unreasonable where no overriding circumstances justified postponement)
United States v. Burgard, 675 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2012) (police must promptly seek warrants to avoid prolonged possessory interference)
United States v. Sparks, 806 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness of delay assessed by balancing possessory interests and government justification)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule limits: suppression only where deterrence justified; objective good‑faith exception)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule inapplicable for isolated negligence; deterrence‑focused analysis)