Wheeler v. State
135 A.3d 282
| Del. | 2016Background
- Christopher Wheeler, former headmaster, was searched after victims (two brothers and another alleged victim) confronted him about decades-old sexual abuse; police obtained two "witness tampering" warrants for his home and office on Oct. 22, 2013.
- The warrants used broad, catch‑all language (copied from typical child‑porn warrants) authorizing seizure and forensic examination of virtually all electronic devices and data without temporal limits.
- Executing the warrants, officers seized 19 electronic devices; a forensic examiner conducted a cursory review of an iMac (last powered on Sept. 29, 2012) and found files later identified as child pornography.
- After obtaining a separate child‑pornography warrant, the State indicted Wheeler on 25 counts based on images found in the iMac’s newsgroup cache; the State conceded it could not show Wheeler viewed the images.
- Wheeler moved to suppress (arguing the witness‑tampering warrants were general/overbroad) and for judgment of acquittal (insufficient proof of knowledge); the Superior Court denied both, convicted him, and sentenced him to 50 years.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding the witness‑tampering warrants were unconstitutional general warrants—principally because they lacked temporal and other particularity limits—and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wheeler) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the witness‑tampering warrants were unconstitutionally general/overbroad | Warrants were cut‑and‑pasted from child‑porn language, lacked particularity (no temporal limits, overly broad categories), amounting to forbidden general warrants | Warrants were supported by affidavits; broad digital searches are sometimes necessary and reasonable given file commingling and forensic realities | Court held warrants were general and violated particularity (Fourth Amendment & Del. Const.) because investigators could have specified relevant time frame and limited scope |
| Whether evidence seized under those warrants must be suppressed | Seizure was fruit of unconstitutional search; suppression required | State relied on warrant and later child‑porn warrant (and conceded cut/paste) — argued permissibility of broad digital search on practical grounds | Reversed convictions; suppression principle applied (Delaware does not apply federal good‑faith exception in same way) |
| Whether affidavit lacked probable cause for witness tampering (and whether omissions were material) | Affidavits failed to establish nexus between alleged tampering and items searched; possible Franks claim for omissions/reckless misstatements | State argued affidavits and incorporated applications established probable cause | Court did not resolve probable‑cause/Franks claims because particularity defect was dispositive; declined to reach those issues |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict (knowledge/viewing of images) | State could not show Wheeler viewed or knowingly possessed charged images—images were in newsgroup cache and may have been auto‑cached | Trial court inferred intent/possession from other images and device use; argued circumstantial inferences supported conviction | Court reversed convictions on suppression grounds and did not adopt a final rule on sufficiency; noted State admitted it could not forensically prove viewing |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones/computers contain vast private data; warrants and searches demand heightened scrutiny)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (historical condemnation of general warrants and protection of papers)
- Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927) (particularity requirement prevents general exploratory rummaging)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (describes the specific evil of general warrants)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (Fourth Amendment requires particularity in the warrant itself, not only in supporting papers)
- United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005) (warrant to seize and examine entire computer held insufficiently particular; court discussed good‑faith application)
- State v. Castagnola, 2015 Ohio LEXIS 1666 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2015) (discussed limits on computer warrants; officers must describe expected computer evidence as specifically as circumstances permit)
- United States v. Ninety‑Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty‑Two Dollars & Fifty‑Seven Cents, 307 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2002) (distinguishes overbroad warrants from general warrants; discusses permissible generic classifications)