United States v. Timmy Reichling
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4991
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In August 2013 police obtained warrants to search Timothy Reichling’s parents’ home and an adjacent trailer after an affidavit described a Facebook and texting relationship between a 14‑year‑old victim and an account for “Nathan Solman.”
- The affidavit stated the victim had sent over 300 nude photos between 2010–2012, received threatening messages when she tried to stop, and that the IP/Facebook account for “Nathan Solman” traced to Reichling’s parents’ residence; text messages came from a number registered to Reichling.
- The affidavit recounted a July 2012 in‑person sighting consistent with Reichling’s appearance, messages suggesting stalking, and Reichling’s status as a registered sex offender with a prior juvenile sexual offense conviction.
- Warrants authorized seizure of images, recordings, all computers and computer hardware, digital storage devices (hard drives, flash drives), and non‑digital media (including videotapes/VHS).
- Seized items produced evidence leading to a federal indictment for producing, receiving, and possessing child pornography; Reichling pled guilty to one count but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions.
- Reichling argued the affidavit only established probable cause to seize his cell phone, not other digital devices or non‑digital media (e.g., VHS tape); the district court denied suppression and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause to search/seize storage devices beyond the cell phone | Govt: affidavit and nexus support search of locations and media where images likely kept | Reichling: affidavit only linked him to sending/receiving on a cell phone; no nexus to other devices or VHS | Court: Probable cause supported searching other digital and non‑digital media given nature of offense, behavior of collectors, and common‑sense inferences |
| Whether non‑digital media (VHS) could be searched/seized | Govt: reasonable to infer recordings or copies could exist on non‑digital media; technology permits transfer | Reichling: transferring digital files to VHS is not plausible; affidavit gave no basis to expect VHS evidence | Court: Permit reasonable inference that non‑digital media might contain evidence (also noted technical means to transfer and stalking conduct suggesting recordings) |
| Whether issuing judge reasonably relied on affidavit (review standard) | Govt: judge may draw common‑sense inferences; deference to issuing judge | Reichling: affidavit insufficient as a matter of law; warrants overbroad | Court: Review de novo for legal questions but great deference to issuing judge; substantial basis existed for probable cause |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed under Leon good‑faith exception | Govt: even if warrants defective, officers reasonably relied on judge’s issuance | Reichling: affidavit so lacking no reasonable officer could rely on warrant | Held: Good‑faith exception applies; defendant failed to show reckless/dishonest affidavit or judge abandonment of neutrality |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940 (7th Cir.) (deference to issuing judge; probable cause standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test; fair probability standard)
- United States v. Scott, 731 F.3d 659 (7th Cir.) (judges may draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is kept)
- United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774 (7th Cir.) (probable cause and common‑knowledge about digital evidence recoverability)
- United States v. Carroll, 750 F.3d 700 (7th Cir.) (need to understand behavior of collectors and technology in child pornography context)
- United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.) (good‑faith presumption when officers obtain warrant)
- United States v. Newsom, 402 F.3d 780 (7th Cir.) (collectors likely retain images; inferences about retention support probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (lawful search of premises extends to containers where object may be found)