2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-14-2013

USA v. Jon Lackner

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2771

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Jon Lackner" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 377.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/377
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-2771

____________ 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JON J. LACKNER

 Appellant

___________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00813-001)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

___________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 30, 2013

Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE, and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 14, 2013 )

___________ 

OPINION

___________

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

At issue on this appeal is the validity of a search of a laptop computer undertaken 

by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to search warrants issued by 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania authorities. The District Court denied Appellant Jon 

Lackner’s motion to suppress the inculpatory evidence revealed by the search, concluding 
2

that the FBI agents acted within the scope of the validly-issued warrants and that, in any 

event, they relied in good faith on the warrants, precluding suppression of evidence as a 

remedy. We agree with the District Court’s analysis. Accordingly, we will affirm the 

District Court’s judgment.

I.

We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural 

history of this case. Accordingly, we set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. 

In the Fall of 2008, Lackner, a resident of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, was the 

subject of an investigation undertaken by the Police Department of Bensalem, 

Pennsylvania as a result of internet communications between Lackner and a fictitious 

fourteen year-old girl named “Jessica.” The internet communications were sexual in 

nature and graphic, and included a live video transmission of Lackner masturbating while 

communicating with “Jessica.” When Lackner traveled to Bensalem on March 24, 2009 

for the purpose of having sex with “Jessica,” he was arrested by Bensalem law 

enforcement officers. 

Using the information gathered by the Bensalem authorities, Cherry Hill, New 

Jersey police officers procured a warrant to search Lackner’s residence. The affidavit 

submitted in support of the search warrant application concluded that there was probable 

cause to believe that computers and other electronic devices, such as cameras and disks,

constituted evidence of the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, in violation of 

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:24-4. The affidavit explained that the electronic devices would have 

to be searched by an analyst, and requested permission to turn these items over to 
3

Bensalem Police for further search. The New Jersey warrant explicitly permitted “any 

officer of any police department having jurisdiction” to search Lackner’s residence for 

computers and other electronic devices for “evidence of the crime of Endangering the 

Welfare of a Child.” (App. 41). 

Execution of the warrant resulted in the seizure of three computers (a Sony laptop, 

a Toshiba laptop, and a Dell desktop), three web cameras, and two flash drives. In 

addition, Lackner’s employer, Main Street Dental, gave police a desktop computer used 

by Lackner. All of the seized items were turned over to the Bensalem Police, which 

subsequently turned over the computers and other electronic evidence to the 

Pennsylvania State Police Computer Crime Lab. 

Bensalem Police then applied for a second warrant, seeking permission to search 

“the items seized from Jon Lackner . . . and Main Street Dental . . . which are currently 

housed at Bensalem Township Police Headquarters.” (Supp. App. 1.) The affidavit

accompanying the warrant application listed nine electronic devices to be searched. The 

computers seized from Lackner’s house and the Main Street Dental computer were the 

last four items listed. The affidavit sought permission to search the nine devices “for 

images and/or data that involve the application or documentation of Unlawful Contact 

with a Minor and Criminal Use of a Communications Facility including but not limited to 

instant messaging archives, buddy lists, photographs, phone books/logs, text messages, 

emails, and documents relating to residency and computer ownership.” (Supp. App. 8). 

Twice in its concluding paragraph the affidavit listed the nine devices in the same order. 
4

The accompanying warrant issued by a Pennsylvania judicial officer described the

“premises or persons” to be searched as the items taken from Lackner’s home and Main 

Street Dental, but the list of items to be searched omitted the last three devices identified 

in the concluding paragraph of the affidavit, including the Sony laptop. Although only 

six devices were specifically listed on the section of the warrant specifying the items to 

be searched, the Pennsylvania State Police examiner proceeded to search all nine devices 

identified in the affidavit accompanying the warrant application, including the Sony 

laptop. This initial search indicated that the Sony laptop did not contain evidence relating 

to “Jessica.” 

In December of 2009, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

returned a five-count indictment, charging Lackner with federal offenses arising out of 

his interaction with “Jessica.” In October of 2010, shortly before trial was scheduled to 

commence, Lackner’s counsel claimed that discovery was incomplete, and requested a 

mirror image of the Sony laptop’s hard drive. The government acceded to this request, 

but only after the FBI conducted a forensic examination of the laptop.

During this examination, the FBI found a video of a 16 year-old girl exposing 

herself to Lackner, along with chat logs documenting Lackner’s directions to the girl 

while he watched and recorded her on his computer. In light of this development, a 

federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added one count charging 

Lackner with using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and one count charging Lackner with possession of 

child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4).
5

Before trial on the superseding indictment began, Lackner moved to suppress the 

evidence found on the Sony laptop. The District Court denied the Motion to Suppress on 

three grounds: (1) the search was authorized under the terms of the New Jersey warrant;

(2) the search was valid under the Pennsylvania warrant because the Sony laptop had 

been omitted from the list of items to be searched as the result of a “clerical error,” and 

(3) the FBI had acted in good faith in believing that the Pennsylvania warrant authorized 

the search of the Sony laptop. After the motion to suppress was denied, Lackner 

successfully moved to sever the two additional counts of the superseding indictment and 

proceeded to trial on the original five counts. After a seven day jury trial, Lackner was 

convicted on all five counts. 

Lackner subsequently pled guilty to the two counts added by the superseding 

indictment. As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that Lackner would 

retain his right to appeal the District Court’s decision on the Motion to Suppress. 

The District Court sentenced Lackner to 120 months’ imprisonment on counts one 

through five, and seven, and 180 months on count six, which charged Lackner with the 

use of a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. All sentences 

were to be served concurrently. The District Court also imposed a five-year term of 

supervised release, a fine of $1,500, and a special assessment of $700. Lackner filed this 

timely appeal, limited to the District Court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress the 

evidence seized from the Sony laptop. 

II.
6

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have appellate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress “for clear error as to the underlying factual findings,” but “exercise[] plenary 

review of the application of the law to those facts.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 

336 (3d Cir. 2002). We must sustain the District Court’s ruling if the search was 

authorized by either the New Jersey or the Pennsylvania warrant. Even if neither warrant 

authorized the search of the Sony laptop, we must uphold the denial of the suppression 

motion if the FBI agents relied in good faith on the existence of an otherwise invalid 

warrant.

A. The New Jersey Search Warrant

Lackner does not contend that the New Jersey warrant was infirm, that the search 

of his residence was unconstitutional, or that the seizure of the Sony laptop was 

inappropriate. Instead, Lackner’s argument is confined to the legality of the search of the 

laptop’s contents. 

Lackner first asserts that the New Jersey warrant’s explicit authorization for the 

search to be conducted by “any officer of any police department having jurisdiction” 

should be understood as limited to only those law enforcement officers “having 

jurisdiction to execute this warrant.” (Lackner Reply brief at 1.) Lackner elaborates that 

only a law enforcement officer “having adequate territorial or exceptional jurisdiction to 

execute” the warrant, (id. at 3), was authorized to conduct a search under the New Jersey 

warrant. Lackner, however, does not cite any authority for the proposition that he has 

standing to challenge who has the authority to execute a validly-issued warrant. In this 
7

regard, it is not unusual for local law enforcement personnel to rely upon the expertise of 

federal forensic examiners to undertake the highly technical examination of electronic

media. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511, 522 (4th Cir. 2010) (upholding 

under plain view doctrine FBI search of computer pursuant to a state court warrant issued 

to state law enforcement personnel). Indeed, the warrant in this case contemplated that 

the Cherry Hill police officers would deliver the seized items to law enforcement officers 

outside their territorial jurisdiction.

Lackner argues, however, that the New Jersey warrant authorized only the seizure 

of the Sony laptop and other electronic media, not a search of their contents. This 

argument is specious. The warrant allowed for a search of Lackner’s residence for 

evidence of “the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, in violation of N.J.S.A. 

2C:24-4.” (App. 43.) Only by examining the contents of electronic media could it be 

ascertained that evidence of such criminal activity existed. In this respect, the affidavit 

accompanying the search warrant application attested to the needs of an analyst to 

conduct a proper examination of the contents of the electronic media. Thus, the New 

Jersey warrant plainly contemplated a search of the digital evidence.

Finally, contrary to Lackner’s assertion that the New Jersey warrant at best 

allowed for searching for evidence of Lackner’s contacts with “Jessica,” the warrant 

extended to evidence “relevant to any prosecution of the designated offense,” Williams, 

592 F.3d at 520, i.e.,“Endangering the Welfare of a Child.” The fact that the evidence

found on the Sony laptop depicted a second potential minor does not invalidate the 

seizure or the search. 
8

In summary, the FBI agents were authorized to participate in the search, the search 

was properly confined to the limits of the search warrant, and the search warrant did not 

restrict the search to evidence involving “Jessica.” Therefore, the District Court did not 

err in denying the motion to suppress on the basis of the New Jersey warrant. 

B. The Pennsylvania Search Warrant

Although the Sony laptop was not included in the section of the Pennsylvania 

warrant listing the specific items to be searched, the District Court concluded that the 

search of its contents was valid because its omission from that list was an obvious clerical 

error. We discern no error in the District Court’s conclusion.

In Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2004), we recognized that an 

ambiguity in the warrant or an evident clerical error in the warrant can be resolved by 

reference to the supporting affidavit, even where, as here, the affidavit has not been 

incorporated into the warrant. We explained that “[i]n these situations, it is clear that the 

requesting officers and the magistrate agreed on the place to be searched or items to be 

seized, but there is an obvious ministerial error in misidentifying or ambiguously 

identifying the place or item.” Id. This is such a case.

The section of the warrant captioned, “SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF 

PREMISES AND/OR PERSON TO BE SEARCHED,” states: “Item[s] seized from Jon 

Lackner, 801 Cooper Landing Road, Apartment B604, Cherry Hill, NJ 08033 and Main 

Street Dental, 2581 E. Chestnut Avenue, Vineland, NJ 08361 which are currently being 

housed at Bensalem Police Headquarters.” (Supp. App. 1.) The Sony laptop, of course, 

was one of those items. But, the section of the warrant captioned “IDENTIFY ITEMS 
9

TO BE SEARCH FOR AND SEIZED,” listed only six of the nine devices that were 

being held at Bensalem Police Headquarters. There is thus an obvious ambiguity on the 

face of the warrant itself: on the one hand, the warrant indicates that only six electronic 

devices are to be searched, but on the other hand, it indicates that all electronic devices in 

the possession of the Bensalem Police Department are to be examined. 

This ambiguity is resolved and the existence of a clerical error is revealed by 

reference to the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant application. The 

three omitted items, including the Sony laptop, are the last items in the affidavit’s 

detailed description of the items sought to be searched. The concluding paragraph of the 

affidavit twice lists the devices to be searched in the same order, with the Sony laptop 

being the seventh device identified. The warrant repeats in haec verba only the first six 

items in the exact same order as set forth in the affidavit. It is perfectly plain that the law 

enforcement officers sought permission to search all nine items, and that the issuing 

judicial authority had a plain understanding of what items were to be searched. “Reliance 

on the affidavit in these circumstances neither broadens nor shrinks the scope of the 

warrant, but merely rectifies a ‘[m]inor irregularit[y].’” Doe, 361 F.3d at 240 (citation 

omitted). Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that the Pennsylvania warrant 

authorized the search of the Sony laptop.

 C. The Good Faith Determination

The District Court also concluded that, even if the search of the Sony laptop was 

not authorized by either the New Jersey or the Pennsylvania warrants, suppression of the 
10

evidence derived from the search was not required because the FBI had acted in good 

faith. We agree.

The Fourth Amendment does not bar the use of evidence “obtained by officers 

acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral 

magistrate.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 (1984). Stated otherwise, 

suppression of evidence is “inappropriate when an officer executes a search in objectively 

reasonable reliance on a warrant’s authority.” United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301, 305 

(3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the evidence 

should be excluded, the court must consider “whether a reasonably well trained officer 

would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate judge’s 

authorization.” Id. at 307 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The District Court’s determination that the search was authorized under both the 

New Jersey and the Pennsylvania warrants supports the conclusion that the search in this 

case was undertaken in objectively reasonable reliance on the authority of the warrants. 

Indeed, the existence of a warrant typically suffices to supplant the need for a “deep 

inquiry into reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to 

establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search.” 

Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Buttressing 

the conclusion that the federal agents acted in reasonable reliance upon the authority of 

the warrant is the fact that Pennsylvania law enforcement officers also inspected the Sony 

laptop. 
11

Lackner argues that the search could not have been conducted in good faith 

because the laptop was in the possession of law enforcement for two years prior to the 

federal search being conducted, and therefore the age of the warrants alone made reliance 

unreasonable. This argument is meritless. Items lawfully seized may be searched anew 

as long as the item remains in the legitimate, uninterrupted possession of the police. See 

United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038, 1049 (9th Cir. 1983). Lackner presents no 

evidence that the police possession became unlawful during the two-year period, or that 

possession was interrupted at any point. 

Lackner has thus failed to establish that the District Court erred in concluding that, 

even if the New Jersey or Pennsylvania warrants were fatally flawed, suppression of the 

evidence was appropriate. Accordingly Lackner’s motion to suppress was properly 

denied. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.