Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cr-00638/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cr-00638-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Konrad P. Wolff
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KONRAD P. WOLFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cr-00638-JD-1 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SUPPRESS

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Defendant Konrad Wolff is charged with one count of possessing child pornography and 

one count of receiving child pornography. He moves to suppress the results of searches of his 

hard drives and electronic devices. The Court denies the motion.

BACKGROUND

On September 24, 2015, Wolff’s wife, a student at UC Berkeley, contacted Officer Kevin 

Vincent of the University of California Police Department (“UCPD”) to report that “she had 

discovered child pornography on an external computer hard drive” that belonged to Wolff. See

Sept. 25, 2014, Search Warrant and Affidavit (“First Search Warrant”) ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 28-1. Ms. 

Wolff told Officer Vincent that she had used her husband’s computer with his permission the 

previous day while he was out of town, and in the course of performing a computer search came 

upon files with names similar to “stepfather fucking stepdaughter” and “two men having sex with 

a teenage girl.” Id. ¶ 2; Declaration of Kevin Vincent (“Vincent Decl.”) ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 29. Her 

initial attempts to open the files were unsuccessful. See id. The next day, she tried to access the 

files on her husband’s “WD My Passport” external hard drive. First Search Warrant ¶ 3; Vincent 

Decl. ¶ 8. She found that it was password protected, but noticing that the password hint was 

“moar” -- Danish for “mother” -- she was able to deduce that the password was “jegelskermoar,” 

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 10
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Danish for “ilovemother.” Vincent Decl. ¶ 8; Incident Report, Dkt. No. 29-2.1 On the drive, she 

found what she described as “‘hundreds’ of images of minors engaged in sexual acts or exposing 

themselves in a sexual manner.” First Search Warrant ¶ 4. The folders containing the pictures 

were “buried deep within other folder groups, and were categorized by name and ethnicity.” See 

Incident Report. Ms. Wolff estimated that “the female children in the images ranged in age from 8 

to 14 years old, although most of them were age 8 to 10 years old.” First Search Warrant ¶ 4. On 

the evening of September 24, 2014, she turned the drive over to Officer Vincent. Id. ¶ 5; Incident 

Report; Vincent Decl. ¶ 10.

On September 25, 2014, Sergeant Andrew Tucker of UCPD prepared a search warrant 

affidavit recounting these facts and seeking judicial permission to search the drive. See First 

Search Warrant. Judge Tara Desautels of the Alameda Superior Court issued the warrant that 

afternoon. See id. After the warrant was issued, UCPD sent the hard drive to a crime lab for 

testing. See Declaration of Andrew Tucker (“Tucker Decl.”) ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 28; Sept. 30, 2014, 

Search Warrant and Affidavit (“Second Search Warrant”) ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 28-2. That same day, 

Officer Vincent went back to Ms. Wolff’s apartment, where she gave him two laptops, a tablet, a 

digital camcorder, two cell phones, and six thumb drives. Vincent Decl. ¶ 14.

On September 30, 2014, Sergeant Tucker prepared a second search warrant affidavit, 

seeking judicial permission to search the newly acquired electronic devices. See Second Search 

Warrant. The affidavit contained allegations almost identical to the ones submitted on September 

25 and a new paragraph describing the general characteristics of pedophiles “[b]ased on [his] 

training and experience.” See id. ¶ 8. Judge Desautels signed the warrant the same day, see 

Second Search Warrant, and Sergeant Tucker submitted the additional electronics to the crime lab.

The crime lab analysis revealed 93,158 images of suspected child pornography on Wolff’s 

hard drive, among other findings. Dkt. Nos. 28-5, 28-6. The government filed an indictment on 

December 18, 2014, charging Mr. Wolff with one count of possession of child pornography in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). See Dkt. No. 1. On February 19, 2015, the government 

 

1 Mr. Wolff is of Danish descent, and had taught his wife some Danish phrases. See Incident 

Report.

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 10
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

filed a superseding indictment, alleging counts for possession, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and 

receipt, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), of child pornography. See Dkt. No. 14.

DISCUSSION

Wolff challenges both the government’s initial acquisition of his electronic devices and the 

lawfulness of the two state warrants that the government obtained to search them.2 Neither 

argument is persuasive.

A. Acquisition of Electronic Devices

Wolff contends that the government could not accept his electronic devices from Ms. 

Wolff without a warrant. Although he concedes that his wife turned the devices over voluntarily 

and without coercion, see Hearing Tr. at 16:4-5, Dkt. No. 37, he nevertheless contends that the 

government’s actions constituted a warrantless seizure that does not fall within a recognized 

Fourth Amendment exception.

As an initial matter, Wolff’s argument that the government’s acceptance of the devices 

constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure of any kind -- let alone an unlawful one -- is ill taken. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “evidence discovered in a private search is not subject to exclusion 

for failure to obtain a search warrant or otherwise comply with the requirements of the [F]ourth 

[A]mendment” because “the [F]ourth [A]mendment protects against unreasonable intrusions by 

the government, but not against the conduct of private individuals.” United States v. Sherwin, 539 

F.2d 1, 5-6 (9th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Tosti, 733 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(“The Fourth Amendment’s proscriptions on searches and seizures are inapplicable to private 

action.”). Wolff contends that Sherwin is outdated and was implicitly overruled in United States 

v. Jacobsen, which held that receipt by Drug Enforcement Agency officers of a suspicious 

package found by Federal Express employees was a seizure. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 120 & n.18 

(1984) (“the agents’ assertion of dominion and control over the package and its contents did 

constitute a ‘seizure’ . . . .”). The problem with this argument is that a year after Jacobsen, the 

 

2 He also suggests in passing that the language of the search warrant may be insufficiently 

particular depending on how it is interpreted, see Dkt. No. 25 at 8 n.7, but the Court cannot decide 

an argument that is simply gestured at, not made.

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 10
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ninth Circuit cited Sherwin to reiterate that “[t]he government’s acceptance of documents 

obtained in a private search and voluntarily relinquished to government agents does not constitute 

a seizure . . . .” United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1340 n.4 (9th Cir. 1985). While the Court 

may not be bound by circuit precedent when there is an intervening and clearly irreconcilable

Supreme Court opinion, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), Wolff 

has not shown that Jacobsen amounts to a sea change in precedent, and he also fails to point to 

any authority for the notion that this Court can refuse to follow a precedential Ninth Circuit 

opinion based on a Supreme Court decision that predates it.

Wolff’s argument also fails on specific substantive grounds. Jacobsen affirmed the 

proposition that the Fourth Amendment “is wholly inapplicable ‘to a search or seizure, even an 

unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or 

with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.’” Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113 

(quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662 (1980)). Contrary to Wolff’s suggestion, 

Jacobsen clearly permitted the UCPD’s warrantless acceptance of the electronic devices from Ms. 

Wolff. The case holds that the lawfulness of a government search subsequent to a private search 

“must be tested by the degree to which [the government] exceeded the scope of the private 

search.” See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 115. As Mr. Wolff concedes, the government did not search 

within the external hard drive or electronics prior to obtaining a warrant. See Hearing Tr. at 

22:18-21. There was no government search at all that might exceed the scope of Ms. Wolff’s 

private search. Nor was the warrantless seizure of the devices, even assuming it was a seizure, 

unreasonable. As Jacobsen found, the government agents may have “seized” the narcotics 

package, but since it “remained unsealed, and the Federal Express employees had invited the 

agents to examine its contents,” the “seizure was not unreasonable.” Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 120-

21.

Wolff cites no case to the contrary. In United States v. Tosti, the Ninth Circuit upheld two 

police searches, neither of which is analogous to the government’s alleged seizure here. The first 

took place in 2005, when Tosti gave his computer to a CompUSA store for servicing, and an 

employee found child pornography on it. See Tosti, 733 F.3d at 818-19. Police detectives arrived 

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 4 of 10
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on the scene and viewed both thumbnails and full-sized versions of the same images the employee 

had seen. See id. Based on what they saw, the detectives seized Tosti’s computer. See id. The 

court of appeals upheld the search under the private search exception, without addressing the 

detectives’ seizure of the computer. See id. at 821-22. The second search took place in 2009, after 

Tosti’s wife turned over various electronic devices from their shared residence to the police and 

signed a “Consent to Search” form purporting to allow the government to search the items she had 

turned over. See id. at 819-20. The Ninth Circuit opinion examined only the search of the 

devices, not their seizure. See id. at 823-24. Nothing in the opinion addresses, much less finds 

unlawful, a challenged seizure.

The other cases Wolff cites are equally inapposite. In United States v. Trejo, police 

officers physically went to the defendant’s home, seized his computers based on permission from 

his parents, who lived in the same house, and searched the devices without a warrant. See 471 F. 

App’x 442, 445 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Trejo addressed the constitutionality of both the 

search and seizure together, and does not touch on the issue at hand: the constitutionality of a 

warrantless seizure accompanied by a search conducted pursuant to a warrant. See id. at 447-49. 

The same is true of the three-paragraph memorandum disposition in United States v. Thomas, 302 

F. App’x 558 (9th Cir. 2008), and the unpublished district court opinion in United States v. Smith, 

No. CR-09-0441-TUC-CKD-DTF, 2010 WL 1949364, at *6-7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2010).

B. Adequacy of Search Warrants

Wolff also contends that the Alameda County Superior Court erred in finding probable 

cause and issuing search warrants to search his electronics based on the affidavits submitted by the 

police. “A court evaluating the constitutionality of a search conducted pursuant to a search 

warrant issued by a magistrate reviews the magistrate’s probable cause determination for clear 

error.” United States v. Nguyen, 673 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 2012). The reviewing court’s duty 

is to ensure the magistrate had a “substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]” probable cause existed. 

Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271 (1960), overruled on other grounds by United States v. 

Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980). “Probable cause exists when, considering the totality of the 

circumstances, the affidavit shows that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a 

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 5 of 10
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1252 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Wolff contends that the statement in both affidavits that Ms. Wolff saw “‘hundreds’ of 

images of minors engaged in sexual acts or exposing themselves in a sexual manner” does not 

amount to probable cause that she saw child pornography, because Ms. Wolff’s notion of sexual 

acts or exposure might conceivably include conduct that does not qualify as child pornography. It 

is certainly true, as Wolff points out, that child pornography has a specific legal definition. A 

photograph or video qualifies as child pornography if its production involved the use of a minor 

engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” which means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, 

bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or 

pubic area. See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(i)-(v), (8)(A).3 

But Wolff’s argument goes too far. An affidavit does not fail to pass muster just because it 

does not exhaustively detail how the photos and videos fit into one of the statutory categories. On 

multiple occasions, the Ninth Circuit has found descriptions of the sort at issue here adequate to 

uphold a magistrate’s issuance of a warrant.

In United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1986), for example, the court upheld a 

warrant based on an affidavit that was considerably more conclusory than the ones here. In Smith, 

the court primarily relied on an affidavit from an “experienced postal inspector” stating that he had 

seen photos from the defendant depicting “three juvenile girls engaged in ‘explicit sexual 

conduct’” along with a citation to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 -- in other words, the language of the statute 

itself, with no further factual description of what the photos depicted. See Smith, 795 F.2d at 848-

49. Although the court said that “more specific descriptions of the photographs would have been 

desirable” and expressed some unease with the fact “that the government did not present and the 

magistrate did not see the photos in question before the warrant issued,” it upheld the warrant. Id. 

 

3

The affidavit referred to California Penal Code § 311.11(a) rather than the federal statute, but 

that does not affect the probable cause analysis, because there is no “meaningful difference” 

between the state definition of “sexual conduct” and the federal definition of “sexually explicit 

conduct.” Compare Cal. Penal Code § 311.4(d) with 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A); see also United 

States v. Battershell, 457 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 6 of 10
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The affidavit in Smith also included a statement by a pediatrician that the girls depicted were under 

eighteen, the defendant’s admission that he took the pictures and “would just have to take more” if 

the photos were not returned to him, and statements by two of the girls that they had posed for the 

photos and that the defendant kept a “whip-like” device at his residence, but contained no further 

factual description of the photos sufficient to show that it fell into one of the statutory categories. 

Id. at 849. Wolff’s suggestion that Court disregard the adequacy of the words “explicit sexual 

conduct” in Smith to find the words “sexual acts” deficient in this case draws too nice a 

distinction. 

Even more squarely on point is United States v. Patrick, 365 F. App’x 834 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(unpublished). The Ninth Circuit upheld the sufficiency of an affidavit recounting that a lay 

computer technician had informed the affiant that he had seen “pornographic pictures of children 

involved in sexual acts” on the defendant’s computer. Patrick, 365 F. App’x at 836. The court 

emphasized that the technician was not anonymous and that there were no inconsistencies in the 

technician’s report or evidence of any motive to lie, all of which is true in this case as well. See id. 

Indeed, the facts here are even more supportive of probable cause, since the source of the 

information was Wolff’s wife, not a stranger. See also United States v. Battershell, 457 F.3d 

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting fact that a witness was “turning in her boyfriend . . . enhances 

the credibility of her statement.”). 

Wolff says that Patrick is a non-published disposition that is not binding on this Court. 

That is true, but the fact that the Court is not obligated to follow it does not preclude the Court 

from finding it to be persuasive, which it does. At the very least, Patrick precludes suppression 

based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. “Good faith reliance exists if the 

agents’ affidavit establishes ‘at least a colorable argument for probable cause,’ and the agents 

relied on the search warrant in an objectively reasonable manner.” United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 

709, 731 (9th Cir. 2008). Even if the Court were inclined to find that the affidavit, as written, did 

not amount to probable cause -- and it is not so inclined -- the fact that Patrick upheld the 

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 7 of 10
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sufficiency of an affidavit with virtually identical language4is at least evidence that any issues 

associated with the affidavits are “sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and 

competent judges as to the existence of probable cause,” warranting application of the good-faith 

exception. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 926 (1984).

Tellingly, Mr. Wolff cites no case where an affidavit like the one at issue here was found 

inadequate. The in-circuit cases he cites where an affidavit’s description of photographs was 

found inadequate to support probable cause involved situations where the plain language of the 

affidavit unambiguously included subject matter that was not covered by the statute, rather than an 

allegedly imprecise term that someone, somewhere might conceivably understand to include 

lawful photographs. See Battershell, 457 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (description of a 

photograph as “a young female (8-10 YOA) naked in a bathtub” did not indicate whether there 

was “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” as required by the statute); United States 

v. Busby, No. CR 11-00188 SBA, 2011 WL 6303367, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) 

(suppressing evidence where affidavit described models as “female, mid to late teens” because that 

description “necessarily includes individuals who are 18 and 19 years-old”). A description does 

not fail to provide probable cause just because a defendant can hypothesize an innocent reading of 

it. To hold otherwise would effectively impose a rote requirement on affiants and witnesses to 

parrot the language of the statute. It is difficult to imagine a rule more out of step with the 

Supreme Court’s repeated descriptions of probable cause as “a fluid concept” that admits of a 

“practical, nontechnical conception” rather than “[r]igid legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 

213, 230-32 (1983); see also Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370-71 (2003).

Wolff also stresses the fact that the affidavit in this case was based on the words and 

descriptions of layperson, his wife. Courts have certainly held that the fact that an affiant has 

some experience with child pornography can give added heft to an identification. See, e.g., United 

States v. Krupa, 658 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). And non-expert declarations, 

 

4 Wolff attempts to distinguish Patrick by pointing out that the affidavit here referred to minors 

“engaged in sexual acts or exposing themselves in a sexual manner,” but it is unclear how 

describing additional acts beyond those found adequate in Patrick could vitiate probable cause.

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 8 of 10
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unaccompanied by copies of the illegal photographs, have been found to be adequate in many

cases. See United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2006) (relying on an affidavit 

from a computer technician); Patrick, 365 F. App’x at 836-37 (same). Presuming that an affidavit 

based on a lay description is inadequate, as defendant seems to urge, is impossible to square with 

Battershell’s holding that “[a]ny rational adult person can recognize sexually explicit conduct 

engaged in by children under the age of 16 when he sees it” and that “we have accepted, for 

purposes of an affidavit in support of a search warrant, the conclusory age estimates made by 

civilians and other untrained lay witnesses without demanding a detailed explanation of how the 

witnesses reached that conclusion.” Battershell, 457 F.3d at 1053, 1054 (quoting United States v. 

Hurt, 808 F.2d 707, 708 (9th Cir. 1987)). It would also cripple investigatory efforts in cases like 

this one, where the images were discovered by a private individual on a hard drive. Law 

enforcement would be forced to try to repeat exactly the private search, a course of action fraught 

with its own potential constitutional pitfalls, as evidenced by the fact that there is presently a 

circuit split about how far reconstructed searches of hard drives and computers can go. Compare

United States v. Lichtenberger, 786 F.3d 478, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that police officer 

exceeded scope of private search where there was no “virtual certainty” that the files he viewed 

were the same ones the private individual previously viewed on the same computer) with Rann v. 

Atchison, 689 F.3d 832, 837-38 (7th Cir. 2012) (permitting police to view images on digital media 

device where private individual had previously viewed other images on same device) and United 

States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464-65 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that the police do not exceed 

private search where they examine more files on a drive than the private searcher did).

Consequently, the Court will not disturb the state court judge’s issuance of the two 

warrants in this case. Additionally, the Court finds that excluding the fruits of the searches 

conducted pursuant to the warrants would not be appropriate, since the good faith exception would 

//

//

//

//

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 9 of 10
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

apply even if the affidavits did not make out a showing of probable cause.

CONCLUSION

The motion to suppress is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cr-00638-JD Document 38 Filed 10/14/15 Page 10 of 10