United States v. Winn
79 F. Supp. 3d 904
S.D. Ill.2015Background
- In June 2014 Mascoutah police investigated Nathaniel Winn for photographing/videoing 13–14-year-old girls in swimsuits at a public pool and fondling himself; officers seized Winn’s Samsung Galaxy III with his consent on June 21.
- Detective Lambert delayed applying for a warrant and, after interviewing witnesses over several days, submitted a warrant application; the State’s Attorney filled a template list of items to seize and mistakenly listed disorderly conduct on the signed warrant instead of public indecency.
- The warrant’s seizure list was a broad template authorizing “any or all files” (calendar, contacts, texts, photos, videos, app data, GPS, deleted data, etc.).
- A Cellebrite forensic extraction was performed, generating a full phone dump; the extraction report did not include the pool photos but did reveal extensive child pornography and other videos of minors, which led to separate investigations and felony charges.
- The magistrate signed the warrant; later, officers manually searched additional content and followed up on unrelated child-pornography evidence without obtaining a separate, tailored warrant.
- Court: motion to suppress was granted in part and denied in part — ultimately suppressing all evidence obtained from the cell phone due to an overbroad, non‑particular warrant and execution exceeding its scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Winn) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delay between seizure and warrant | 9‑day delay made the seizure unreasonable | Initial seizure reasonable; delay was not unreasonable given investigation | Delay was avoidable but not unreasonable; motion on delay denied |
| Probable cause / wrong statute on warrant | Warrant listed disorderly conduct, but affidavit showed public indecency — no probable cause for disorderly conduct | Probable cause existed for public indecency; listing disorderly conduct was an inadvertent error and not fatal | Listing wrong statute was a mistake attributable to prosecutor; probable cause existed — motion on probable cause denied |
| Particularity / overbreadth of warrant | Warrant authorized seizure of “any or all files” (template) — a general warrant lacking required particularity | Officers relied on a signed warrant and prosecutor review; good‑faith reliance applies | Warrant was facially overbroad and insufficiently particular as to data categories and time frame; violation of Fourth Amendment — suppression warranted |
| Execution scope / plain‑view seizure of child pornography | Officers exceeded the warrant by performing full extraction, viewing unrelated files, then investigating child pornography without a new warrant | Forensic extraction was reasonable method to execute a warrant that authorized whole‑phone search; discovery of child pornography justified follow‑up | Officers exceeded scope: extraction and manual review went beyond evidence tied to pool incident; plain‑view seizure doctrine inapplicable because officers reached that view by unlawful, overbroad search |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule is not mandatory for every Fourth Amendment violation)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (searches of cell phones implicate extensive privacy interests; warrants must be tailored)
- United States v. Burgard, 675 F.3d 1029 (Seventh Circuit on reasonableness of delay obtaining a warrant for a seized phone)
- United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d 779 (narrow warrant descriptions needed for digital media searches)
- United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374 (general warrants impermissible; suppression of evidence seized under general warrant)
- United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476 (particularity requirement and limiting scope of searches)
- United States v. Christie, 717 F.3d 1156 (Tenth Circuit on delay reasonableness for consent seizures)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (Third Circuit on consent seizure delays and plain‑view limits)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (courts assess warrants based on what was presented to the magistrate)