United States v. Workman
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13131
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- The FBI seized and operated Playpen, a hidden child‑pornography website hosted on a server the FBI placed in the Eastern District of Virginia, after arresting its operator.
- Playpen users accessed the site via anonymizing software (Tor), preventing standard IP‑based identification.
- The FBI obtained an Eastern District of Virginia warrant authorizing installation of malware (a network investigative technique) on Playpen to collect identifying data from site visitors.
- The malware identified an IP address in Colorado; that led agents to Andrew J. Workman, who was searched in Colorado under a local warrant and arrested for possessing and receiving child pornography.
- Workman moved to suppress his confession and files, arguing the Virginia warrant was insufficiently particular and that the issuing magistrate lacked territorial authority under Rule 41(b) and the Federal Magistrates Act; the district court granted suppression.
- The government appealed, arguing the Leon good‑faith exception permits admission because agents reasonably relied on the magistrate’s warrant despite any territorial defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence must be suppressed because the Virginia magistrate lacked authority under Rule 41(b)/Magistrates Act | Workman: magistrate exceeded geographic jurisdiction; warrant invalid and evidence must be suppressed | Gov: even if warrant invalid, agents reasonably relied on it and Leon good‑faith exception applies | Court: assumed jurisdictional defect but held Leon exception applies; suppression improper |
| Whether Leon good‑faith exception applies when a judge lacks authority to issue the warrant | Workman: Leon not available because warrant void ab initio when judge lacked authority | Gov: Leon applies as in Herring/Evans where officers relied on recalled/defective warrants | Court: Leon applies; Herring and Evans control; absence of misconduct to deter supports admission |
| Whether agents’ reliance was objectively reasonable given novel cyber method and cross‑district data extraction | Workman: extracting data from out‑of‑district computers should have put agents on notice warrant invalid | Gov: agents were entitled to rely on magistrate and unsettled precedent; reasonable for non‑lawyer agents to defer | Court: objective reasonableness met — law unsettled and several federal judges had upheld similar warrants |
| Whether warrant was facially deficient or otherwise fell within Leon exceptions (e.g., bare bones, false affidavit) | Workman: argued inadequate particularity and jurisdictional defects | Gov: agents did not knowingly supply false info; particularity not challenged as to agents’ reasonableness | Court: none of Leon’s disqualifying circumstances shown; agents presumptively acted in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (Leon exception can apply where officers reasonably rely on erroneous official records)
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (evidence admissible when officer reasonably relies on incorrect computer record of outstanding warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishing the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (clarifying Leon’s scope re: objective reasonable good‑faith belief)
- United States v. Krueger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussing suppression for warrants issued outside proper district; distinguished here because Leon was not raised below)
- United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that unsettled precedents can make reliance reasonable for Leon analysis)