N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GEOR GE VOR TM AN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-10038

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-00210-W HA-1
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 8, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HILLM AN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 21 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Tim othy

Hillm an, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M a ssa c huse tts, sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Ge orge Vortm an a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e and m otion to dism iss his indic tm e nt. Vortm an a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt obta ine d e vide nc e a g a inst him

pursua nt to a
warran t tha

t wa s issue d in viola

tion of Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 41, a n d that wa s ove rbroa d a

nd not supporte d by

proba b le c a use . He furthe r c la im s tha t the g ove rnm e nt’ s outra ge ous c onduc t wa rran t s dism issa l of his indic tm e nt. W e re vie w both of thedistric t c o urt’ s de nia ls de novo, se e Unite d State s v . Ruc k e s , 586 F.3d 713, 716 (9th C ir. 2009); U nite d State

s v . Blac k, 733 F.3d 294, 301 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd a ffirm both orde rs. This c ourt ha s a lre a dy

e xam ine d the pre c ise warrant a t issue in the c onte xt of
anothe r c a se . Se e Unite d S t ate s v . He nde rson , 906 F.3d 1109 (9th C ir. 2018). W e thus re vie w the wa

rrant a nd the re late d te c hnology only brie fly he re . In 2014, theFe de ra l B ure a u of Inve stiga

tion (“ FB I” ) be ga

n inve stiga

ting

“ Play pe n,” an online forum

for se nding a

n d re c e iving c hild pornogra phy . In Ja nua ry 2015, the FB I se iz e d Pla

y p e n’ s se rve rs a

nd la te r be ga n to ope ra te the Play pe n we bsite from

FB I fa c ilitie s in Virginia . In Fe brua ry 2015, theFB I obta ine d a

wa rrant from

a m a gistra te judge in the Ea s te rn Distric t of Virginia
a uthoriz i ng use of a

Ne twork Inve stiga

tive Te c hnique (“NIT” ), in orde r to ide ntify Play pe n use rs (“ the NIT wa

rran t” ).
2The NIT wa rrant a uthoriz e d se arc h of a ll “ a c t ivating c om pute rs,” or the
c om pute rs “ of any

use r or a dm inistra

tor who logs into [Pla

y pe n] by e nte ring a
use rna m e and pa ssword,” “ w he re ve r [that c om p ute r wa s] loc ate d.” Whe n a pe rson logge d into, or “ a c tiva

te d,” Pla y pe n with a

use rna m e and pa ssword, theNIT te c hnology

would c a use the use r’ s c om

pute r to se nd se v e n pie c e s of ide ntify ing inform a t ion to thegove rnm e nt se rve r, suc h a s the c om pute r’ s inte rne t protoc ol
a ddre s s. Id. at

1112. This te c hnology wa s a lle ge dly ne c e s sa ry be c a use Pla y pe n wa s hoste d on a

n a nony m o u s ne twork tha

t a llowe d use rs to a c c e ss we bsite s without otherwise re v e a ling ide ntify ing inform a tion. Se e id. Using theNIT, the FB I found tha t the use r “ c hildpornsta

r” ha d re g iste re d with Pla y pe n on Ja n ua ry 3, 2015, a

m onth be fore the FB I’ s ta ke ove r of Pla

y pe n, ha d a c c e sse d c hild pornogra phy vide os, a nd ha d a c tive ly

logge d onto Pla

y p e n for
a pproxim a te l y

18 hours be twe e n Ja

nua ry 3, 2015 a nd M arc h 4, 2015. T h e FB I tra c e d the use r’ s IP a ddre ss to a re side nc e in Sa

n Franc isc o, whic h it se arc he d pursua nt to a se pa ra te wa rrant. The FB I se iz e d a

num be r of digita l de vic e s be longing to Vortm

an with m ore tha

n 1,000 photogra

phs a nd 150 vide os of c hild pornogra phy . Vortm an w a s la

te r c ha rge d with viola

ting 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(2), (b)(1), “ R e c e ipt of C h ild Pornogra phy ” and 18 U.S.C
. § 2252(a )(4)(B ), (b)(2),

“ Posse ssion of C hild Pornogra p hy
. ”
3Vortm an c ha lle n ge s the NIT wa rrant on two grounds. First, he argue s tha

t be c a use the wa

rran t wa s issue d in viola

tion of Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 41,
e vide nc e se iz e d pursua

n t to it should be suppre s se d. In H e nde rson , we he ld tha

t the N IT wa

rran t viola te d R ule 41, but he ld tha

t the good-fa ith e xc e ption
ne ve rthe le ss e xc use d the viola t ion. Se e id. at 1119–20. Vortm a n offe rs no re a son to de pa rt from tha t holding here , a

nd we thus hold tha

t the good-fa ith e xc e ption
e xc use d the viola

t ion he re . Ne xt, Vortm an a

rgue s tha t the NIT wa

rrant wa s ove rbroa d a

n d wa s not supporte d by proba

b l e c a use . W e re vie w the spe c ific ity of a wa rrant de novo, Unite d State s v . W ong , 334 F.3d 831, 836 (9th C i r. 2003), a nd a finding of proba b le c a use for c le ar e rror, U

nite d State

s v . Me e k , 366 F.3d 705, 712 (9th C ir. 2004). The NIT wa

rrant wa s not ove rbroa d. Se e He nde rson , 906 F.3d a t 1119. It de sc ribe d the pla c e to be se arc he d (a c tiva t ing c om pute rs) and the inform a tion to be
se iz e d (se ve n pie c e s of ide ntify ing inform at ion) with pa rtic u la rity
. Se e Unite d State s v . Smith , 424 F.3d 992, 1004 (9th C ir. 2005). Furthe rm ore , the NIT wa

rrant a uthoriz e d only se arc h of “ a c tiva

ting”
c om pute rs— i.e ., those tha

t logge d into Pla

y pe n during thetim e the gove rnm e nt ope ra t e d the we b s ite with a use rnam e an d pa ssword. In orde r to use an “ a c tiva ting
4c om

pute r,” a use r ha d to first downloa d a nd insta ll softwa

re to use the
anony m iz ing ne twork on whic h Pla y pe n ope ra te d . Ne x t, a

use r c ould not a c c e ss Play pe n through the

ope n inte rne t, but would inste a d ha ve to find a

nd input Play pe n’ s e xa c t a l gorithm ic a ddre ss (whic h we de c l ine to provide he re ). He nde rson , 906 F.3d a

t 1111. In orde r to a c c e ss Pla y pe n’ s c onte nts, the use r would ha ve to na viga te pa st Pla

y pe n’ s hom e pa ge , whic h de pic te d two m inor fe m a le s with the ir le gs spre a d a pa rt, a nd re giste r with a use rna

m e and pa ssword. B e c a use the re we re m

ultiplea ffirm a tive ste ps re quire d to be an “ a c t ivating
c om pute r,” the wa

rrant a pplie d to those a c tive ly

atte m pting to a c c e ss c hild pornogra phy . It did not swe e p too broa dly
. Vortm an ne xt a

rgue s tha t the NIT wa

rrant la c ke d proba

ble c a use be c a use Play pe n use rs c ould be atte m

pting to a c c e ss the le ga l c onte n t on Pla y pe n, suc h a s its fic tion storie s. The distric t c ourt’ s finding of proba ble c a use wa s not c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State

s v . Vortman , 2016 W L 7324987, a t *7–*9 (N.D. C a l. De c . 16, 2016). First, a s the distric t c ourt pointe d out, we re je c te d a sim ila r argum e nt in Unite d State s v . Gourde , 440 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th C ir. 2006). Se c ond, the
m ultiplea ffirm a t ive ste ps a use r ha d to ta

ke in orde r to a c c e ss a

ny Pla y p e n c onte nt
e sta blish a “ fa ir proba

bility ” tha t re giste re d use rs we re a c c e ssing ille g a l c onte nt. Me e k, 366 F.3d a

t 712. Tha

t “ fa ir proba

bility ” be c om e s c onside ra ble whe n 5fa c t oring in tha t the ove rwhe lm ing m a

jority of Pla y pe n’ s c onte nt wa s pa

te ntly ille g a l de pic tions of c hild pornogra phy
. Fina lly , Vortm an a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt a c te d so outra g e o usly by ope ra t ing Pla

y p e n a s to wa

rrant dismi ssa l of his indic tm e nt. To pre v a il on a gove rnm e nta l m i sc onduc t c l a im , Vortm an m ust m e e t the “ e xtre m e ly

high sta nda rd” of showing tha

t the fa c ts unde rly ing his a rre st a nd prose c ution “ viola

te [] funda m e nta l fa irne ss” or a

re “ so grossly

shoc king . . . a s to viola

te the unive rsa l
se nse of justic e .” Blac k, 733 F.3d a t 298; se e also United State s v . Russe l l , 411 U.S. 423, 431–32 (1973). Vortm an fa ils to m e e t this high sta nda rd. To de te rm ine whe the r gove rnm e nt c onduc t wa s outra ge ous, a c ourt ge ne ra lly c o nside rs the six Blac k fa c tors. S e e Blac k, 733 F.3d a

t 303. The distric t
c ourt a ppropria te ly c onc lude d tha

t a ll six fa c tors we i ghe d a ga inst dism issa l. Se e Vortman , 2016 W L 7324987, a t *5–*6. The

first two fa c tors, (1) known c rim ina l
c ha ra c te ristic s of the de fe n da n t and (2) individualiz e d suspic ion of the de fe nda nt,
we igh a ga inst dism

issa l be c a use the gove rnm e nt re a sona bly be lie ve d tha

t
re giste re d Pla

y p e n use rs we re vie wing a nd sha ring c hild pornogra

phy
. The ne xt two fa c tors, (3) the gove rnm e nt’ s role in c re a ting thec rim e of c onvic tion a nd (4) the g ove rnm e nt’ s e nc oura ge m e nt of the de fe nda nts to c om

m it the offe nse , we igh
a ga inst dism

issa l be c a use Vortm an volunta

rily a c c e s se d Pla

y pe n be fore
6gove rnm e nt se iz ure and the n a ga in without a ny gove rnm e nt prom

p ting. Ne xt, (5) the n a ture of the gove rnm e nt’ s pa rtic ipation in the

offe nse , we ighs a ga inst dism issa l be c a

u s e the gove rnm e nt ope ra te d Pla y pe n for only

two we e ks, a c te d a s a m e re obse rve r, and be ga

n the e nte rprise only

a fte r Vortm an ha d a lre a dy a c c e sse d Play pe n. Fina lly , (6) the nature of the c rim e be ing pursue d a nd ne c e ssity

for the
a c tions ta ke n, we ighs a ga inst dism

issa l be c a use due to the anony

m ous ne twork on whic h Pla y pe n ope ra te d , othe r inve stiga t ive proc e dure s we re like ly to fa il. M ore ove r, we have re

je c te d the outra ge ous c o nduc t a rgum e nt in c om

pa ra ble gove rnm e nta l stings involving a rgua b ly m ore outra ge ous c onduc t . Se e , e .g. , Unite d State s v . May e r , 503 F.3d 740, 754–55 (9th C ir. 2007); Unite d State s v . Mitc he ll , 915 F.2d 521, 525–26 (9th C ir. 1990). Thegove rnm e nt’ s c onduc t doe s not wa rrant dismissa l of Vortm an’ s indic tm e nt. AFFIRM E D.

7