M ic hael P. Atchis on, the curre nt wa rd en ofthe M enard  Co rrec ti ona l Center, has been subst ituted f or D onald H uli ck a s re sp o n d en t p u rs u a n t to F ed . R . A p p . P . 43 (c).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3502 S T EV EN R. R ANN, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . M ICHAEL P. A T CH I S ON, W ar den,  R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 08 CV 00792

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 4, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 3, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd F LA UMa nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. I n 2 00 6, S te ven R ann was c o nvi ct ed o ft wo c o unt s o fc r i m i na ls ex ua la ss au lt an d o ne2 N o. 11

- 3502

co unto fpo ss es si o n o fc hil d po r no g r aph y . He was s en te nc ed to c o ns ec ut i ve t er m s o ft wel ve y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm ent o n each sexu al assa ultco nvi cti on a nd fi ftee n yea rs ’ i m pr i so nm en t o n the c hi l d po r nog r aph y c o nv i ct i o n. Ra nn fi l ed a di r ec t appe ali n s ta te c o ur t ar g uingtha t he re c eiv ed ine ffec tiv e a s s i s ta n c e o f co u n se l be c au se h is at to rn ey d id n ots e e k to su p p re ss inc rim in at in g e vidence i n th e f or m o fdi gi tali m age s obtained w i thout a wa r r a ntfr om a zi p dr i v e a nd a c a mer a me mor y c a r d. The I l l i no i s Appel l at e Co ur t uphe l d hi s co nv i ct i o n, a nd th e Illino is Su p re m e C o u r t d en ied h is p et itio n to ap p ea l. Ha v i nge xh a us t e d hi s st a t e c o ur tr e med i e s , R a nnfi l e d a p etition fora w r it o f ha beas corp us . Th e d istri ct cou rt d e n ied h is w rit, bu t d id iss u e a C er tific at e o f A p p ea lab i l i t y, a l l o wi n gR a n n t o b r i n gth i s a p p e a l
. B e c a u s e we fin d that hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselclaim l acks m er i t, we affirm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f Ra nn’ s habe as pe ti ti o n.
I. InN ov em b e r 2 00 6, follo w in g a j u ry tria l in t h e C irc u it Cou r t o fS al i ne Co unty, I ll i no i s, S te ve n Ra nn was c o nvi ct ed o ft wo c o unt s o fc r i m i na ls ex ua la ss au l t a nd o ne count o fchi l d pornog ra phy. H e re c eive d consec uti ve sente nces oftwel ve yea rs ’ i nc ar cer ati on o n each sexual as sa u l tc h a r g e a n d fi ft e e n y e a r s ’ i n c a r c e r a t i o n o n the ch il d porn ograp hy c h a r ge. T he f acts rel evan t to Ran n’s h ab ea s p et it ion h av e b ee n laid ou t in th e Illino is Appel l at e Cou r t’ s Rul e 2 3 Or dera ffi r m i ngRa nn’ s co nvi cti on o n dir ect appeal
. They a re as f ol l ows:N o. 11

- 3502 3 I n J an ua ry 2006 , th e d efend an t’s biologi cal da ug ht er, S. R. , wh o w as then 15 yea rs o l d, re port ed to the Eldora d o p olic e d ep ar tm e n t t h at sh e h ad be en se x u ally ass aul ted bythe defe n d an t and that he had tak en pornog ra phic pictures o fher
. Fo l l owing her i nter vi ew by the pol i ce, S
. R. r etur ned t o h er hom e, r etr i eve d an Oly m pu s d igi talcam er a m em or y c ar d fr om the top o fa b i g - s c r e e n t e l e v i s i o n s e ti n h e r p a r e n t s ’ b e d r o o m, and too k the m em or y c ar d to the pol i ce. The o ffi cer to w hom she d elive re d the m em or y c ar d, Dep uty Sher i ffInvest i gat orM i ke Jon es ofthe Sal i ne County She riff’ s D ep art m e n t, testifi ed at the d efend an t’s su bseq ue nt tri al that n o l aw enforce m en t officers ac co m pan i ed S
. R. on he r r etur n t o he r ho m e, a nd th er e i s no e vi den ce i n th e recor d t o s ug g es t th atS
. R. was di r ec te d t o a tt empt t o r ec o ve r e vi den ce f o r the po l i ce o r even to r etur n h o m e ata l l
. I m ag es do wnl o ade d fr o m the mem o r y c ar d de pi ctthe de fen dan t sexual l y a ssa ult i ng S
. R. an d w er e intro du ced i nto evi dence atthe defe nd ant’ s t ri al
. . . . T h e im age s, ta ke n in 2 00 5, w er e a d m itt ed a s p ro p en sit y e vid en c e . . . and do notr el ate di re ctl y t o the c harg es of w hi ch the defe nd ant was co nvi cted in thi s ca se. So m eti m e s ubsequent t o S. R. ’ s ini ti alinte rv i ew with the po l i c e , S
. R. ’ s mothe r b r o ught De pu t y J o ne s a com pu terzi p dri ve that conta i ned add i ti onalpor nogr aphic i m age s o fS
. R. and porno gr aphic i m age s o f K
. G
. , w ho is the d efend an t’s ste p d a u gh ter and S. R
. ’s hal f

- si ste r. The i m age s o n the zi p dri ve ar e fro m 19 99 an d 20 00 , w h en S.R . w as a p p r o x im at ely 9 ye ar s o ld an d K
. G
. w as ap p roxim ately 15 years old, and are di r ec tly r el at ed to the c ha r g es o fwhi chthe de fen dan t4 N o. 11

- 3502

w as convi cted in thi s ca se. Fo ur ofthe i m age s, ta ken ar o un d C hr i stm as of19 99, were adm i tte d i nto evi dence at the defendant’ s tri al
. . . . Deputy J ones te sti fi ed that no law e n force m en t officers w ere pre sen t w he n S.R.’ s m ot her procur ed the zi p dri ve, and there i s no e vidence i n the re cor d to sugge st that S. R. ’s m othe r w as dir ecte d to att em pt to reco verevi dence forthe pol i ce. Ra nn’ s trial c o uns eldi d no t m o ve t o s uppr es s th e im ages fo u nd on th e zip d rive and cam era m em ory c ar d w h en th ey w er e in tr od u c ed int o e vid en c e. On the se f ac ts , the I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t affi r m ed th e c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e , a n d th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C ou rtd e n i ed R an n ’s p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. In N ove m b er 2 00 8, Rann fi l ed a pet i ti on f ora w ri t o f habe as corp us pur su an t to 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4( a) i n the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t for the S outher n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s. The m atterwas re fer re d to the m agi str ate j ud ge, w ho fi l ed a r epor t r eco m m end in g that the peti ti on be d e n i e d
. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d o p t e d th e r e p o r t a n d r e c o mm endati on o fthe m agi str ate j ud ge and enter ed j ud gm en t d en ying R an n’s h abea s p etition. T he district cou rt subsequentl y g ra nted Rann a Cer ti fi cate o fA pp eal abi l i ty to consi der w hether the I l l i noi s A pp el l ate Cou rt reaso nabl y a ppl i ed U ni te d S ta te s S upr eme Co ur t pr ec ede nt w hen i t hel d that Rann’ s t ri alco un se lwas not i neffective for f ai l i ng to m ove to suppress the i m age s r eco ver ed fro m the dig i talst or age devic es, and w hether the pol i ce’ s v i ew i ng o ftho se i m age s c onst i tuted a si gn if icant exp an sion of a p rivate search suc h th at a w arra nt was re quir ed to per m i t pol ice to vi ew the i m age s. Th i s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.N o. 11

- 3502 5 II. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fh ab eas r el i ef d e n ov o. C rocket t v . H ulick, 542 F.3d 118 3, 1188 ( 7th Cir. 2008 )
. The A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death P en alty A ct ( “A ED PA ”) go ver ns o ur r evi ew o fRann’s § 2254 p et itio n . W h en , as h er e, a s ta te co u rtad j u d ica te s a p et iti o ne r ’ s i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns elc l ai m o n the m er i ts , a fede r alc o ur t ca n i ssu e a wri t o fhabe as c o r pus onl y i fthe sta te cour t’ s decis i on was ei ther“co ntra ryto , or invol ved an unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b y th e S up r e me Court ofthe U n ite d Sta tes , ” o r “w as base d on an unre aso nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe fact s i n l i g hto fthe evi dence p re sente d i n the St ate co urt proce edi ng. ” M arti n v. Gr os s hans , 4 24 F
. 3d 5 88 , 5 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( ci ting 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d))
. The st ate co urt’ s a pp l i cati on o f fed er al la w m u st n oton ly b e i n c o rre c t, bu t “ ob j ec tiv ely unreas onabl e. ” SeeRenico v. Le tt, 13 0 S
. Ct. 1 855, 18 62 ( 2010 ) ( ci ti ng Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U.S
. 362, 40 9- 10 (2000)). Typ icall y, th is w ou ld involve th e state cou rt “apply [ i ng] a rul e di ffer ent fro m the gov er ni ng l aw se t f or th i n [ Suprem e Cour t ca ses ] , o r i fi t deci des a cas e d iffer en tly th an th e [Su p re m e C ou rt ] o n a se t o f m at er ially i nd i stingui shabl e f acts
. ” Bel l v. Cone, 53 5 U.S
. 68 5, 69 4 (2002). Rann contends that he re cei ved i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of coun sel un d er St r i ck l and v. Wa shin gt on , 46 6 U.S
. 66 8 (1984), sp ecifi cally argu ing tha t h is trial cou ns el’ s fai lure to m ov e t o s u p p re ss th e im ag es fou n d on th e z ip dri ve and cam er a m em or y c ar d c on sti tuted i neffecti ve6 N o. 11

- 3502

A s th e c o u r t p o i n t e d o u td u r i n g o r a l a r g u me n t, th e S u p r e me 1 Cour tr ul ed i n S to n e v . P o w ell , 428 U.S
. 465 (1 9 7 6 ), that wh ere a state co u rt ha s pr ov id ed an op p or tu nity f or a f u l l an d f air li ti gati on of a Fou rth A m endm ent cl aim , a st ate p ri soner cannot be g ra n ted habeas r el ie fon the groun d that e vidence obtained th ro ugh an unconst itutional s earc h and s ei zure w as in tr o d u c e d a t h is t ri a l. Seei d. at 49 4. Th e Illino is Ap p ellate (co n tin u ed ...) as si st an ce o fc o uns el
. The I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t d eterm i ned that these f ai l ures did not re nd er Rann’s c ounsel in effe c tiv e b ec au se an y m ot i o n t o s u p p re ss th e e vid en c e w ou ld h av e b ee n u n su c c es sfu l. U nd erSt r i ck l and, Ran n m us t show t h a t his coun sel’s p erform an ce w as d efi cientand th a t the de fi cientperfor m an c e p rej u d ice d h is d efe n se . Gros s hans , 42 4 F
. 3d at 590 ( ci ti ng St r i ck l and, 46 6 U. S
. at 68 7)
. W he n re vi ewing cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unseli n habeas p etit i ons, however, we m ust ho norany re aso nabl e s tat e cour t deci si on, since “onl y a cl earer ro r i n apply i ng St r i ck

land’s st an d ar d w ou ld s u p p o r t a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s.” Ho lm a n v . Gilm o re, 1 26 F
. 3 d 8 7 6 , 8 8 2 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 )
. As Rann’s i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unselcl ai m ar i ses f r o m hi s c o un s e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o mo v e t o s up pr e s s e v i de nc e, R an n m u st p ro ve “ ‘th at h i s F ou rt h A m en d m en t c laim i s m er ito ri ous a nd thatther e i s ar eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty th atthe v er di ctwoul d ha ve b ee n di ffer en t ab se nt the e xcl ud abl e e vi dence i n or der t o d em onst ra te actual prej ud i ce. ’ ” E be rtv. Ga etz , 610 F. 3d 404, 411 ( 7 t h Cir. 2010 ) ( quoti ng Kim m elm an v. M or r i s on , 47 7 U.S
. 36 5, 375 (1986 ))
. St r i ck l andr eq u i re s that we pres um e co unsel

1N o. 11

- 3502 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 C o u rt, ho w e v e r , d id n o t a sse rt th e b en efi t o f St o ne, a n d we h a v e a u th o ri ty to d ec id e R a n n ’s ar g u m en t o n its m er its
. S ee, e.g ., Wood v. M i lyard , 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1832- 34 ( 2012) ( procedu ral f or fei t ur es b y a s t at e s houl d be en f or c ed un l es s s t ro ng reaso ns j usti fy d is m is si ng a coll ater al att ack on the f orfei ted p ro ce d u ra l g ro u n d ). “ ‘ r en der ed ade qua te a ss i st an ce a nd m ade a l ls i g ni fi ca nt deci si ons i n the exer ci se ofr eas onabl e pr ofess i onalj ud gm ent. ’ ” E bert, 6 10 F
. 3d at 411 ( quoti ng St r i ck l and, 46 6 U
. S. at 690). Rann’s ar gum ent c en te rs o n hi s co ntenti on that, wh en th e po l ice s ea r ch ed th e di g i ta ls to r ag e dev i ce s an d vie w ed the i m age s o n them , theyexce eded the s cope o f th e p rivate searc h cond uc ted by S. R
. an d h e r m o th er. S i nc e th e su bs eque nts ea r chb y the po l i ce e xc ee ded th e sco pe ofthe i ni ti alpri vate se ar ch, so hi s a rgu m ent runs, the po lice needed a warr ant t o “open” the di gi tal storage d evices an d search them becau se th e record conta i ns no evi den c e th at S. R. o r her m othe r knew th e d igit al s to ra ge d ev ice s c on ta in ed im ag es of ch ild pornog ra phy pri orto the pol i ce v i ew i ng. S i nce the pol i ce did noto btain a warr ant pr i orto o pening the di gital st or ag e d ev ice s a n d vie w in g t h e im ag es , he cla im s t h eir doi ng so co nsti tuted an unco nstitu tio nalwarra ntl ess se ar chi n vio l at i o n o fthe F o ur thAm en dm en t. Ra nn thus ar gues that the I l l i noi s A p p ellat e Cour t unre aso n ab l y a p p lied Su p re m e C ou rtp re c ed en t w h en it f o un d tha tthe p o l i c e di d n o te xp a nd the i ni t i a lp r i vate sea rch perf or m ed by S. R. and herm othe r and rul ed8 N o. 11

- 3502 th at an y m ot ion to su p p re s s th e im ag es ob ta in ed via th at se ar c h w ou ld h av e b ee n u n su c c es sfu l. Long- est abl i shed p re cedent ho l ds that the F ourth A m en d m en t d oe s no t ap p ly to p riv a t e s e ar c h es . See B urdeau v. M cD ow el l , 2 56 U. S
. 4 65 , 4 75 ( 19 71 )
. W he n a p riv at e p ar ty p ro vid es p olic e w ith ev id en c e o b ta in ed in the c ours e o fa p riv at e sear ch, the pol i ce ne ed not “st op her orave rtthei r eye s. ” C o o lidge v. New H a m p s h ire, 40 3 U
. S. 44 3, 48 9 ( 197 1)
. Rather, the questi on be com es whethe r the po l i ce s ubs eque nt l y e xc eed th e sc o pe o fthe p riv at e s ea rc h
. See U nited Sta tes v. Jaco bsen , 4 6 6 U. S
. 10 9 ( 19 84 )
. In Ja co bsen , th e S u p re m e C ou rtru led th at ind ivi du al s r eta i n a l egi ti m ate expecta ti on o f p ri vacyev en aft er a p riv at e in d ivid u al c on d u c ts a se ar c h, an d “a d d iti o na l inva si o ns o fpr i va cyb y the g o ve r nm en t ag en t m ust be te ste d by the degr ee to w hi ch theyexce eded the s cope o fthe pri vate se ar ch. ” Id. at11 5. W e hav e not yet ruled on t h e a p p li cation of Ja co bsen to a s ubsequent pol i ce s ear ch ofp riv ate l y s ear ched d igit al s to ra ge d ev ice s, b u t t h e F ifth C irc u i t h as in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Runy an , 275 F
. 3d 449 ( 5th Ci r. 20 01)
. There , Run yan was co nvi cte d o n chi l d pornog ra phy charg es afterhi s e x-w i fe a nd se ver alo fherfri ends ente re d h is re sid en c e a n d as se m b led a c olle c tio n of d igi t a l m ed ia st or ag e d ev ice s, w h i c h t h ey tu rn ed ov er to th e p olic e. Id. a t4 5 6
. Ev e n tho ugh Ru ny a n’ s e x- wi fe and he r fr i e nd s ha d o nl y v i ewe d a “r an do m l y s el ec te d a ss o r tment ” o fthe disk s, th e p oli ce s ear ched each di sk and fo und a tr ove of c h ild p o r n o g ra p h y im ag es . Id. at 460. The cou rt a pp l i e d Ja co bsen t o the se f ac ts a nd par ti al l y uphe l d theN o. 11

- 3502 9

The Fi fth Ci rc ui tr ul ed thatthe pol i c e di d, how eve r, ex c ee d the 2 s c ope ofthe i ni t i al pr i vat e s ea rc h whe n the y s ea rc he d the di s ks onwhi c h Runya n’ s e x- wife and h erfri en d s had no t v ie w ed at le a st o n e fil e. Id. at 464. There was no w ay the poli ce c oul d have kno wn t he c ont en t s ofal l the di s ks b eca us e the disks w ere unlabeled and because R uny an’ s ex- w ife ad m it ted she di d no t s e a r c h a l l of the di s ks be f or e s he t ur ned them o v er to th e p o lic e. Id. The court r eas oned that“[ t] he m ere f a c tth a tth e d i s k s th a t[ th e p r i v a t e i n di v i du a l s ] d i d not e x a m i n e w e r e fo u n d i n th e sa m e l o c a t i o n i n R u n y a n ’s re si d en ce as th e d isks the y d id exam ine is insu fficient to es t abl i s h wi th s ubs tan tial c er t ai nty thatal l ofthe s t or age m edia i n quest ion c ontai ned chil d p ornograp hy.” Id. (co n tin u ed ...) g o ve r nm en t se ar ch, ho l di ngtha t a se ar cho fa ny m ate ri alo n a c om pu terdi sk i s v al i d i fthe pri vate partywh o conducted th e ini ti alse ar ch had vi ew ed at lea st on e file o n th e d isk
. Id. at46 5. A n alogi zi ng di gi tal m ed ia s to ra ge d ev ice s t o c on ta in er s, th e F ifth C irc u it rul ed that “pol i ce e xceed t h e s cope o fa pri orpri vate sea rch w hen theyexa m in e a cl ose d container that w as not ope ne d by the private sea rch es un less th e po li ce are al r ea dy su bs ta nt i al l y c er ta i n o fwhati s i ns i de th atc o ntainer base d on the sta tem ents ofthe p riv ate se ar ches, th eir rep li cation of th e p rivate search , and their exp erti se. ” Id. at46 3. Sin c e t h e p olic e c ou ld be su b st an tia lly certain, based on con versat ions w ith R u n yan ’s ex-w ife an d her fri en ds, whatthe pr i va te l y - se ar ch ed di sk s co ntained, theyd id n ot exceed the sc ope o fthe pri vate se ar c h w h en th ey se ar c h ed th os e s p ec ific d isk s. Id. at46 5. 210 N o. 11

- 3502

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 Si nc e S. R. an d h e r mo th e r k n e w th e c o n t e n t s o fb o th o f t he digitalm edia devices the y prov ided to the polic e, thatprob le m i s no ti m pl i c at ed her e. Fora ful l an d though t ful di s c us s i on of th e a p p lic a b ili ty o f Jacobsen to polic e s earc hes perf orm ed sub seq u e n t to a p riv ate sea rch of dig ital stora g e d ev ices, s ee ge ne ra l l y R unyan , 275 F. 3d at 462- 64. W e fi nd the F i fthCi r cui t’ s ho l di ngi n Runyan to be p er su as ive , an d w e a d o p t it . A s t h e F ifth C irc u it re aso ned, thei r hol ding i s s ensibl e be cause i t pr ese rv es the com p etingo bj ecti ves und er l yi ng the Fo urth Am endm ent’s pro tecti o ns a g ains t war r an tl es s po l i ce s ea r ch es . A defen dan t’ s ex pec ta ti o n o fpr i va cy w ith r es pec t to a c o nta in er u n op en ed by the pri vate se ar c h er s is p re se rv ed u n les s t h e d efe n d a n t’s ex p ec ta tio n of p riv a c y i n th e c o n t e n t s o fth e c o n t a i n e r h a s a l r e a dy been frust ra ted be cause the c onte nts were r endered o b v i o u s b y th e p r i v a t e s e a r c h
. M or eover , th is ru le d isc ou ra ge s p olic e from go in g on “fis h i n g e x p ed itio n s” by op en in g c los ed co n ta in er s. Id. at46 3- 64. W e fi nd that R unya n’s ho l d i ngs tr i k es the properbal ance b etween the l egi ti m ate expecta ti on o f pri vacyan ind i vi du alr eta i ns i n the c onte nts o fhi s di gi tal m edi a s tor age devi ces aftera pri vate se ar ch has been conducted an d the “a dd i ti onali nvasi ons ofpri vacyby th e g o ve r nm en t ag en t” th at “must be te st ed by th e degre e t o w h ich theyexce eded the s cope o fthe pri vate sea rch. ” Ja co bsen , 46 6 U.S
. at11 5.N o. 11

- 3502 11 U nd er Runyan ’ s ho l di ng, po l i ce di d note xc ee d the sco pe o f the pr i v a t e s e a r c he s pe r f o r med b y S
. R. a nd her m othe r w hen theysubse quentl y view ed the i m age s conta i ned on the di gi talm edi a d ev i ces. Rann ar gues that th e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rtrelie d on co nj ec tu r e w h en it f o und tha t S
. R. a nd h er mothe r kne w the c o nt en ts o fthe dev ic es the y de l i ve r ed to the po l i ce , po i nt i ngt o the I l l i no i s App el l at e Cou r t’ s fi ndi ngtha t “[ a] l th o ug h n o te st im on y e x ist s r e ga rd in g h ow th e im ag es on th e z ip d rive cam e to be the re . . . i t seem s highly li kely that S.R.’ s m oth er [com p il ed ] th e i m ages on the zip drive he rself, do wnl o adingthe m fr o m the fam i l y c o m put er . ” Ra nn ar gue s th atthi s i s co nj ec tu r e, y ethe o ffer s no th i ngb ut conj ectur e a nd specul ati on in i ts pla ce. Factual deter m i nati ons ofa s ta te cour t a re “pre sum ed to be cor re ct” and the peti ti oner bear s the burde n o f r e b u t t i n gth a tp r e s u mpt i o n b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i nc i ng evi dence. 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( e) ( 1)
. The I llinoi s Ap pel l ate Court speci fi cal l y found that [ t] hi s i s no t a cas e where m ult i ple pi eces o fpote nt i al evi dence w er e turned ov erto the pol i ce, wh o then had to sift thro ugh the potenti alev i dence to di scover i fany f actualev i dence exi ste d. To the co ntra ry, in this case S. R
. turn ed exac tly one m em ory card ove r to the pol i ce, and herm othe r gave the p oli ce ex ac tly o ne z i p dr i ve . W e ca nno t i m ag i ne mor e co ncl usi ve ev i dence thatS
. R. and herm othe r knew ex ac tl y what the m em or y c ar d and the zi p dri ve c o nt a i ne d. T h es e fi n d in gs w er e re as on ab le b as ed on th e t ria l te st im ony. S
. R. te sti fi ed that she knew R ann had tak en por no-12 N o. 11

- 3502 gr a ph i c pi c t ur e s o f he r a nd b r o ught the po l i ce a m em or y c ar d that c ontained those pi cture s. S
. R. ’ s m ot h er al so bro ught the p oli ce a zi p dri ve conta i ni ng por nog r aph i c pi ctur es o fhe r da ug ht er . Bo thwomen brou ght ev id en c e s u p p or tin g S.R .’s alle ga tio n s t o th e p oli c e ; it is en ti r ely r ea son ab l e to c o nc l ude tha t th eykne w tha t th e di g i ta lmedi a dev i ce s co nt aine d tha t ev i den ce . The c o ntr ar y con c lusi on

— th atS
. R. a nd he r mothe r b r o ug ht dig i talm edi a devi ces to the polic e that they knew had no r el ev an ce t o S
. R. ’ s al l eg at i o ns

— defi es l ogi c. Fo r th ese reason s, th e I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt’s f actu al find ings are r ea so nabl e, a nd Ra nn ha s f ai l ed to pr es en t cl ea r a nd convi nc in g e vi dence

— i nd eed, any evi dence w hatso

eve r

— to ove rco m e the p re sum pti on o fco rr ectne ss w e g i ve to the s tat e co urt’ s fi nd i ng. Lik ew i se, ev en i fthe pol i ce m or e thor oughl y s ea rched th e d igit al m ed ia d ev ice s t h an S.R
. an d h er m ot h er d id and vi ew ed i m age s that S.R. orherm othe r had not view ed, pe r the ho l di ngi n Runyan , th e p olic e s ea rc h d id not exceed o r expand the sco pe ofth e ini ti alpri vate sea rche s. Because S. R. and herm othe r knew the co ntents ofthe dig i talm edi a devi ces w h en theydel i ver ed them to the po l i ce, the po l i ce wer e “s ubs ta nt i al ly ce r ta i n” the d ev ice s c on ta in ed ch ild p or n o g r ap h y. Se eRuny an , 275 F. 3d at 463. A ccor dingl y, the subsequent po lice sea rch d id n ot vio la t e the Fourth A m en d m en t, an d Ran n’s in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l cla im m u st fail.

III
. Rann’s cl ai m that the pol i ce’ s warr antl ess se ar ch of di g i ta lmedi a dev i ce s br o ug htt o th em byhi s vi ct i m a ndN o. 11

- 3502 13 h is v ict im ’s m ot h er vio l a t e d th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t is w i thout m er i t. Because he cannot preva i l on his Fourth A m endm ent a rgum ent, Rann’s i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of coun sel cl aim un d er St r i ck l andmu st f ai l
. Thu s, the Illino is A p p ella te C ou rtd id n otu n r e as on ab ly a p p ly fede ral law w he n it den ied h is ap p eal. T he d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on i s A FFI RMED an d R an n ’s a p p lica tio n for a w rit ofhabea s co rpus i s D ENI ED .

8- 3- 12