2:18-cr-20579
E.D. Mich.Jul 3, 2019Background
- HSI sought and obtained a warrant to search Stetkiw’s computer for evidence related to operating an unlicensed Bitcoin exchange (18 U.S.C. § 1960); the warrant authorized seizure of records including photographic materials.
- During the search for Bitcoin-related evidence in image files, SA William Osborn discovered one image of child pornography and stopped the search.
- After securing a second warrant specifically for child pornography, agents found additional illicit images.
- Stetkiw was charged with receipt/possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A), operating an unlicensed Bitcoin exchange (18 U.S.C. § 1960 and § 2), and criminal forfeiture.
- Stetkiw moved to suppress child pornography evidence obtained during the initial search, arguing the image-file search exceeded the warrant’s scope and that OCR or other narrowing techniques should have been used; the Government invoked probable cause, plain view, and the Leon good-faith exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant was sufficiently particular to authorize searching image files for Bitcoin evidence | Warrant and affidavit established probable cause to search image files for Bitcoin-related records | Image files are not reasonably related to Bitcoin evidence; searching them invaded privacy beyond warrant scope | Warrant was sufficiently particular; image files could contain Bitcoin substantive and attribution evidence; search authorized |
| Whether probable cause existed to search image files | Image files likely contained QR codes, seed phrases, passwords, photos of receipts/selfies — evidence of Bitcoin activity | Unlikely to find Bitcoin evidence in images; searching images unreasonable | Probable cause existed to search image files based on affidavit and testimony; search reasonable |
| Whether discovering child pornography during that search required suppression (plain view) | The first discovered image was lawfully viewed during a search authorized for images; its incriminating nature was immediately apparent | Relies on Carey to argue images in closed files are not plain view | The first image was in plain view; subsequent images obtained under a new warrant and are admissible |
| Whether Leon good-faith exception applies if initial search was unlawful | Government acted in objective good faith; agents stopped search on discovery and obtained a new warrant | If initial search unlawful, evidence should be suppressed despite good faith | Even assuming error, Leon would apply; agents relied on a facially valid warrant and sought a child-pornography warrant promptly |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cellphones contain extensive private data; warrants required for searches)
- United States v. Richards, 659 F.3d 527 (6th Cir.) (computer searches may open various file types to locate warrant-described evidence)
- United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir.) (particularity for computer warrants tied to specific crimes/materials)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (executing officers generally determine search details under a warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on defective warrants)
- United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.) (computer/ESI search protocols not categorically required for particularity)