274 So. 3d 1213
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant uploaded an image file to an anonymous ChatStep chatroom; ChatStep used PhotoDNA to hash-compare uploads to a database of known child-pornography images.
- PhotoDNA flagged a hash-match; ChatStep forwarded the file to NCMEC, which forwarded it to FDLE; no private actor opened the image before FDLE received it.
- An FDLE agent opened the file, confirmed it contained child pornography, and used that confirmation to obtain a warrant to search Appellant’s home and computers.
- Appellant moved to suppress, arguing the FDLE agent’s warrantless opening of the image was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search that tainted subsequent evidence and statements.
- At the suppression hearing, a forensics witness explained the near-uniqueness and reliability of file hash values; the trial court denied the motion, finding Appellant had not shown a reasonable expectation of privacy in the uploaded file.
- Appellant entered nolo contendere pleas reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial; the First DCA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morales) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDLE’s warrantless opening of the image was a Fourth Amendment search | Opening the file was a government search and required a warrant; evidence and statements must be suppressed | Morales had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an image uploaded to an anonymous chatroom; alternatively, the private-search doctrine applies | Denied: Morales failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy; alternatively, private-search doctrine justified FDLE’s review |
| Whether uploading to a "private" chatroom created a protected privacy interest | Chatroom characterization as private is sufficient to invoke Fourth Amendment protection | No evidence of affirmative steps to restrict access (passwords, access control); mere characterization is insufficient | Held: No threshold showing of a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Whether a law-enforcement review exceeded the scope of the prior private search | Agent’s visual review was a new, warrantless search exceeding the private actor’s hash-only match | Private actors’ hash-match frustrated any privacy in the hash; FDLE’s viewing only confirmed the already-indicated contraband and did not expand the search | Held: FDLE’s viewing did not exceed the scope of the private search and was permissible under Jacobsen/private-search doctrine |
| Admissibility of evidence and derivative statements following the file review | All evidence and statements are fruit of an illegal search and must be excluded | Evidence and statements derived from a prompt by private parties are admissible if no governmental overreach occurred | Held: Evidence admissible because either no expectation of privacy or search fell within private-search exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (visual confirmation after private-party indication that material is contraband does not create a separate Fourth Amendment violation)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test governs searches)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (privacy expectation analysis and when technology-based searches implicate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Morel, 922 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (uploading files to public/unguarded internet hosting defeated expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Reddick, 900 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2018) (PhotoDNA/private actor screening frustrated expectation of privacy; government review did not exceed private search)
- Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (scope of government search compared to prior private search relevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)