United States v. Wright, 3:19-cr-00012

Edward C. Wright was indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography after law enforcement searched his electronic devices.
Timothy Bennett, with whom Wright was living, reported seeing child sexual abuse imagery on Wright’s tablet and described the images; Thomsen included Bennett’s tip in the warrant affidavit but omitted five adverse facts about Bennett.
The five intentional omissions: Bennett was a convicted felon; Bennett had passwords and had accessed Wright’s devices; Bennett wanted Wright arrested; Bennett had assaulted (choked) Wright; Bennett risked losing subsidized housing by harboring Wright.
Officers obtained a warrant to search Wright’s tablet, smartphone, and smartwatch; forensic exam recovered ~300 images from the tablet but nothing downloadable from the smartphone.
Before the warrant issued, officers (after Wright invoked counsel) forcibly unlocked Wright’s smartphone by holding it to his face (biometric unlock).
Court found Thomsen intentionally omitted the five facts (Franks) but held those omissions were not outcome-determinative (warrant would still have issued); however, the forced biometric unlock violated the Fifth Amendment, so phone-derived evidence is suppressed while tablet and watch evidence is not.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Franks challenge (affidavit omissions)	Omissions were not material to probable cause; warrant valid	Affidavit intentionally omitted adverse credibility facts and so suppression is required	Court: Omissions were intentional (Franks step one) but not material (Franks step two); warrant would still have issued; suppression denied
Biometric unlock / Fifth Amendment	Either moot because no phone evidence was recovered, or forced biometrics are non-testimonial / permissible	Forcible facial unlock after invocation of counsel was compelled, testimonial, and violated Fifth Amendment; suppress evidence (including possibly all Warrant-based evidence)	Court: Forced facial unlock was testimonial and violated Fifth Amendment; smartphone evidence suppressed; tablet and watch evidence not suppressed because the warrant (not the biometric violation) was the but-for cause of their discovery and wholesale suppression was not warranted

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (two-prong test for challenging truthfulness/omissions in warrant affidavits)
U.S. v. Perkins, 850 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2017) (Franks framework and materiality inquiry)
United States v. Hall, 113 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1997) (informant credibility and prior convictions bearing on reliability)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause standard)
In re Search of a Residence in Oakland, Calif., 354 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (compelled biometric unlocking can be testimonial under the Fifth Amendment)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (smartphones hold extensive private data; elevated privacy interests)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (but-for causation is necessary but not always sufficient for exclusion)
U.S. v. Chen, 979 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1992) (wholesale suppression for flagrant warrant violations is an extraordinary remedy)
U.S. v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2015) (exclusionary rule applies to Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations)
U.S. v. Sears, 411 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2005) (suppression warranted only when officers knew or should have known conduct was unconstitutional)