Opinion ID: 6497142
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: 1. Initial Incident On September 25, 2018, just after 6 a.m., Officer Brad Newell was dispatched to an apartment in Kearney, Nebraska. Newell spoke with J.S., who reported that upon leaving his ­garden-level apartment, he saw a man crouched down by a window to the apartment’s bathroom. The window had blinds, but they had a small gap. When J.S. went outside, J.S.’ girlfriend had just entered the bathroom to shower. J.S. did not mention seeing the individual holding a cell phone. J.S. told Newell that he yelled at the person, who then “took off” running. J.S. chased the person and saw him cut through a yard. Newell asked J.S. to show him the path the person took. Approximately half a block from the apartment, J.S. discovered a cell phone and handed it to Newell. After observing that the phone’s screen was locked, Newell took the phone to the police station. Newell met with Investigator Dan Warrington, who assisted Newell in preparing an affidavit to search the phone. 2. September 2018 Search Warrant and Investigation (a) Affidavit Newell completed an affidavit in support of a search warrant, asking the judge for permission to examine the cell phone for evidence of the crime of unlawful intrusion on September 25, 2018. In the affidavit, Newell stated that he had investigated many crimes where a cell phone contained evidence of the commission of the crime being investigated. In the affidavit, Newell set forth information obtained from J.S. concerning the incident. J.S. reported that on September 25, 2018, “shortly before 0604 hours,” his girlfriend said that she was going to shower. As J.S. left the apartment building, - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 he saw a man looking into the ground-level window to the bathroom of J.S.’ apartment, where J.S.’ girlfriend was preparing to shower. J.S. observed the man “crouched down at the window with his head lowered so that he could see through a small area in the window blinds where one of the blind slats was missing.” J.S. yelled at the man, who then fled. J.S. chased the man and observed him run through a yard and then run south. After Newell was dispatched to J.S.’ apartment, he and J.S. retraced the man’s path of flight. In doing so, J.S. located a cell phone “right where the suspect ran.” Newell observed J.S. locate the cell phone and took custody of it for evidentiary purposes. Newell believed the phone “may contain evidence of the crime of Unlawful Intrusion, whereby the suspect viewed [J.S.’ girlfriend] in a state of undress, and may have also captured photographs and or video of [her] in a state of undress.” Newell also stated that the cell phone would contain evidence of the subscriber of the phone’s account, who could be the suspect. Newell further confirmed that the window was to the bathroom of J.S.’ apartment and that “there was a void in the blinds where a person could see into the bathroom area.” Warrington supplied Newell with a template he used for a cell phone search, and Newell incorporated that language into the affidavit. The affidavit stated that according to Warrington, “it has become commonplace for individuals to communicate with others using cellular telephones or other electronic devices to communicate activities, develop plans, coordinate schedules and to otherwise pass along information in a variety of formats.” Warrington had over 400 hours of training regarding forensic searches of electronic devices. Warrington would testify that there are two general types of data extractions from electronic devices using computer software programs. In a logical extraction, the software “makes read-only requests of specific data to the device” and the device responds by extracting the designated information. The logical extraction is limited in scope and is unable to - 711 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 access photographs or messages stored in third-party applications, to access information stored in a folder different from the default folder, or to access deleted items. In contrast, a physical extraction is comprehensive and “captur[es] a complete picture of the usage and contents of an electronic device.” A physical extraction creates a copy of the device’s flash memory. Based on this information, Newell requested a search warrant to examine the cell phone for evidence relating to unlawful intrusion. Newell set forth that the examination may include searching the phone for the following: Data that may identify the owner or user of the abovedescribed cellular phone including the phone number assigned to the phone; Call Histories and logs (missed, incoming and outgoing); Photographs and their associated metadata; Contact lists and address books; Calendar entries; Messages (SMS, MMS, Recorded Messages, iMessages, or Messages communicated through other third-party application(s)) contained in any place throughout the device; Audio and video clips; Global Positioning System data including, but not limited to coordinates, waypoints and tracks, Documents and other text-based files; Internet world wide web (WWW) browser files including, but not limited to, browser history, browser cache, stored cookies, browser favorites, auto-complete form history and stored passwords; Email messages and attachments (whether read or unread) accessible from the cellular phones listed above; Access and search for communication on any third-party applications located on the above-described cellular phones; and, any deleted and/or unallocated content relating to the above-described types of information. (b) Warrant A Buffalo County Court judge signed a search warrant the same day. According to the search warrant, the issuing judge was satisfied that probable cause existed based upon - 712 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 the affidavit “attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.” The warrant allowed for a search of all of the abovequoted categories of cell phone data and any “SD [c]ards” located within the device for “evidence relating to the offenses of Unlawful Intrusion.” (c) Search Newell returned to the police station and provided Warrington with a copy of the signed warrant. Warrington then extracted data from the phone. After extracting the contents of the phone, he used software to examine the data. The software categorized the data, and one of the categories was “user profiles.” Before the end of the day, Warrington provided Newell with the name of the phone’s user: Jake J. McGovern. The software also pulled together anything identified as a possible image and placed it in a gallery. Warrington searched all imagery on the device by clicking on the tab for photographs. None of the images appeared to be taken through a window or a missing blind slat. He did not locate any photographs taken during the September 25, 2018, event. The following day, Warrington performed an additional extraction of the phone. In the images folder, Warrington found imagery of women in a state of undress. Those images appeared to be “thumbnails” from videos on the device. Warrington selected a tab in the software for videos and tried to match the thumbnails to a video based on file names. After observing women in a state of undress, Warrington reviewed the phone’s “search web history.” He explained, based on his training and experience, that law enforcement will find files or search history associated with a possible crime that the user could be committing. Warrington located several items such as “spy bathroom” and “voyeur bathroom,” which were consistent with unlawful intrusion. Because Warrington observed women in a state of undress, which was consistent with what one could be looking for in the offense of unlawful intrusion, he continued to examine - 713 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 the videos on the phone. Warrington observed imagery of a woman who appeared to be nude and sleeping. One video showed a woman who appeared to be sexually assaulted while unconscious. Some of the videos had “2017” in the title, indicating a possibility that the video was recorded in 2017. After watching the videos, Warrington was aware that a potential sexual assault was involved. He next tried to identify the victim and to determine whether the event occurred in Kearney. To make the identification, Warrington testified: “I began looking at the complete totality of all of the data associated with the video and image files which consisted of, yes, the date and time stamps. It consisted of the metadata. It consisted of the files themselves.” He used that information to determine whether the date and time stamps could be accurate. Warrington then examined communication that may have occurred during the timeframe that the videos and images had been produced and located text messages and communication with a particular woman prior to that incident. Warrington testified that there was a “[p]ossibility” that he could have validated the date stamps prior to playing the videos. Law enforcement identified the possible victim as K.S., a woman who lived in Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. Members of the Kearney Police Department traveled to Grand Island to speak with K.S. In an interview, K.S. said that she had been in a relationship with McGovern from October 2017 to January 2018. It was established that the touching in the videos occurred in Grand Island. Kearney law enforcement officers provided a Grand Island police sergeant with a “CD” which contained the download of the cell phone recovered in Kearney, along with a copy of the search warrant and affidavit from Buffalo County. The sergeant thereby gained access to the download, which included a video depicting a woman in an unconscious state with her clothes being removed and sexual contact occurring. He began investigating a potential sexual assault, which was believed to have occurred in Grand Island in October - 714 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 2017. In looking through the contents of the device, the sergeant was not attempting to find any information regarding the September 2018 Kearney incident. Prior to opening the contents of the phone, no one with the Grand Island Police Department received a search warrant other than the search warrant obtained by the Kearney Police Department. An intelligence research specialist employed by the Grand Island Police Department performed an analysis of the evidence retrieved by the Kearney Police Department. Although the Kearney search warrant, signed September 25, 2018, stated that a search of the device had to occur in the next 30 days, the specialist examined the device’s contents on October 29. In examining the cell phone extraction CD, he found an “associated Google Gmail address.” The specialist prepared a search warrant to send to Google LLC, and a Hall County judge issued a warrant. Because the arguments on appeal are not directed to this warrant or the resulting search, we will not further discuss it. The State subsequently charged McGovern in Hall County with two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, one count of sexual assault in the third degree, and three counts of recording a person in a state of undress. The State identified K.S. as the victim of each count. 3. First Motion to Suppress McGovern moved to suppress any information gathered from his cell phone. McGovern alleged that Newell’s application for a search warrant lacked probable cause to justify a search of the phone’s contents other than for subscriber information. He asserted that members of the Grand Island Police Department improperly searched the contents of his phone without first obtaining a warrant to do so. During a hearing on the motion to suppress, Warrington agreed that the search warrant affidavit included “a much more broad swath of the phone” than just photographs, videos, or user information. He generally agreed that the template - 715 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 listed “all of the different areas of a phone.” Having performed the majority of cell phone searches in Kearney, Warrington testified that he uses a template when he prepares an affidavit seeking to search a cell phone and that typically, the only information that changes from case to case are the device information and the particular crime being investigated. Warrington understood that he was looking for photographs or videos of the event occurring in Kearney on September 25, 2018. But he testified that he was also looking for data on the phone that may be consistent with the crime. Warrington explained that “the same unlawful intrusion could have been committed days before” and that “there could be search histories in regards to . . . how to conduct voyeurism.” Warrington testified that prior to opening a video, he would “look at the totality of all of the data.” That included looking at the file name and metadata that may be available. Warrington testified that some files do not have metadata and that “the ultimate last thing to do is to examine the actual video itself and see if it matches anything that you are looking for.” According to Warrington, there was “a possibility” that the file names of the relevant videos were time and date stamps. But Warrington explained that file names can easily be renamed, moved, or modified; thus, he “[did not] put a lot of credit necessarily into the exact file name.” Warrington stated that he had to be able to look in all of the different locations within a phone, because of how movable the data is. For example, a video may be found in the video section, in the messaging section, or in a third-party application. And he testified that because videos could be edited, he had to watch them in their entirety to determine whether they were of the September 2018 event. McGovern hired Shawn Kasal, a digital forensic analyst, to review the contents of the cell phone. Kasal was provided with a copy of the search warrant and affidavit and was granted access to the extraction of the phone conducted by Warrington. - 716 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 Kasal opened the video folder on the software and “put it in table view.” He explained that table view provides the most information about the contents and files, such as where a file may have been stored on the phone and its “modified or created time date stamp.” Focusing on videos in the video folder beginning with the titles “20171022,” “20171028,” and “20171111,” Kasal was asked if—after looking at the files’ titles, metadata, and thumbnails—he was able to rule them out as being videos of the September 25, 2018, incident. He answered, “By my understanding of the time dates ascribed to the videos in question, they were roughly 340 to 350 days previous to the issuance of the warrant.” Kasal testified that after watching the entirety of the videos, he determined that they did not match the description of the crime scene identified in the warrant. When asked if he was able to make that determination prior to watching the videos, Kasal answered that he “needed to watch the entire video to make sure that it had not been edited, spliced or otherwise modified to include any of that data.” In March 2020, the court considered McGovern’s motion to suppress. The court acknowledged McGovern’s argument that the warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity. It stated that the application and affidavit sought “to search a laundry list of cell phone functions and data” and that “[n]o particular effort was made by the officer to articulate what items of possible evidentiary value could be found in the call logs, address book, calendar and et cetera.” But the court turned its attention to McGovern’s argument that law enforcement should have sought a second search warrant to recover evidence regarding the crime in Hall County. The court stated that based upon the expert testimony presented, the officer in Kearney had every right to initially view all videos contained on the phone to ensure that the file dates and time stamps were accurate, however, once Officer - 717 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 Newell viewed evidence indicating there was evidence of a further crime in Hall County, Nebraska, a second search warrant should have been applied for outlining the types of evidence which would have been relevant for the Hall County case. The court granted the motion and suppressed the evidence. The State did not appeal the suppression order. 1 4. March 2020 Search Warrant Later in March 2020, Warrington filed an affidavit in support of a search warrant. The affidavit discussed the discovery of the cell phone, the September 2018 search warrant, and the extraction and examination of the phone’s data. Warrington’s affidavit stated that during the 2018 examination, he observed “recent web history consistent with voyeurism and unlawful intrusion” and videos that were consistent with the crime of first degree sexual assault. Warrington stated that “further examination of the cellular phone would be necessary in determining further evidence of the crime of 1st Degree Sexual Assault, identity of the victim or victims, as well as the location and date of the offenses.” Thus, he requested issuance of a search warrant for a cell phone belonging to McGovern and authorization for law enforcement to examine the phone for evidence relating to first degree sexual assault. A Buffalo County Court judge issued a search warrant the same day. An officer extracted data from the cell phone, and Warrington examined the extraction sometime in April 2020. He did not find evidence different from what he discovered following the first extraction. 5. Second Motion to Suppress McGovern thereafter filed a second motion to suppress. He sought to suppress all evidence from the search of the cell phone. During a hearing on the motion, Warrington 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 et seq. (Reissue 2016). - 718 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 testified that he was aware of the suppression order when he applied for the warrant in March 2020. In seeking the warrant, Warrington asked for legal authority to re-examine the device for additional evidence. He essentially wanted to look at the exact same data that he had looked at in 2018. The district court overruled the motion to suppress. The court found that the initial review of all of the videos on McGovern’s phone pursuant to the first search warrant was a lawful search and that “the videos were first seen in ‘plain view.’” The court reasoned that “[b]ecause the lawful viewing showed evidence of another possible crime, law enforcement’s second search under the second search warrant is not unlawful exploitation of a prior illegality . . . .” 6. Bench Trial Prior to the start of trial, the State filed an amended information charging McGovern with sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and recording a person in a state of undress. Pursuant to McGovern’s waiver of a jury trial, the court conducted a bench trial on the amended information. At trial, McGovern renewed both of his motions to suppress. He objected to any evidence concerning the contents of the cell phone. He asserted that the September 2018 search warrant (1) was overbroad and lacked sufficient particularity, (2) lacked sufficient probable cause to search the device for photographs or videos, and (3) was exceeded in scope by law enforcement. As to the March 2020 search warrant, McGovern objected that it (1) was granted upon an affidavit that contained information gathered as a product of a prior unconstitutional search, (2) was used by law enforcement to reobtain information and evidence that had been previously discovered pursuant to an unconstitutional search and that had been suppressed by the court, and (3) was not the product of an independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, or other justification that would make the evidence properly admissible. - 719 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Cite as 311 Neb. 705 The court overruled the objections but granted a continuing objection to preserve the concerns raised in the motions to suppress. The court stated that the central issue was whether the State could “cure the defects identified in the first search warrant by issuing a second search warrant or requesting getting a second search warrant” and that it would stand on its ruling that the State had the ability to cure. The trial proceeded on exhibits received by the court. According to investigative reports, K.S. confirmed that she was the woman in videos found on McGovern’s phone and that the videos were taken in Grand Island. She denied giving McGovern permission to take such intimate images of her. At least one video showed digital penetration while K.S. was in a state of unconsciousness. The court convicted McGovern of each count alleged in the amended information. 7. Sentencing For the convictions for sexual assault in the third degree and for recording a person in a state of undress, the court imposed sentences of 1 year’s imprisonment, to be served concurrently. As to the sexual assault in the first degree conviction, the court found that McGovern was a fit and proper candidate for probation and imposed a term of 60 months of Community-Based Intervention probation. It found that periodic confinement in the county jail as a condition of probation was necessary, “because a sentence of probation without a period of confinement would depreciate the seriousness of the offender’s crime or promote disrespect for the law.” Thus, the court ordered jail time of 90 days to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. The State appealed, and McGovern filed a cross-appeal.