Court Opinion

ID: 9499771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:57:18.430601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:43.063867
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the court’s conclusion that there was no fourth amendment violation here and that the evidence objected to should not have been suppressed. I believe that there was no probable cause to issue a warrant and that it was not reasonable for Mr. Eng to think that there was.
“A search warrant is proper (i.e., is supported by probable cause) if the evidence as a whole creates a reasonable probability that the search will lead to the discovery of evidence.” United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 443 (8th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has said that while courts should use a “flexible, common-sense standard” for probable cause, “ ‘bare bones’ affidavits” are insufficient. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). For instance, an affidavit stating that “ ‘affiants have received reliable information from a credible person and believe’ that heroin is stored in a home” is insufficient to establish probable cause after Gates. Id. (citing Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964)).
The affidavit in this case provides no detail with respect to what Mr. Lewis actually saw. The only information in the affidavit about the images is as follows: “Sundstrom advised Lewis had been a Computer technician for a long time and has worked on several home computer processing units. Sundstrom advised Lewis has found pornography on several computers but believes that what he found on the Grant’s [sic] computer to be child pornography.” The sum of this information is insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant because it is too conclusory and because it is hearsay.
I am unable to join the court’s assertion that Mr. Lewis was uniquely able to distinguish between child pornography and lawful images due to his experience as a computer repairman. We have no information whatever to indicate that Mr. Lewis had any expertise in what constitutes child pornography. We know only that Ms. Sund-strom said that he said that he had previously found pornography on customers’ computers and did not think that it was child pornography. There is also no evidence that Mr. Lewis knew the legal definition of child pornography. Indeed, we do not even know what Mr. Lewis saw because he never provided any description of it and Mr. Eng did not speak to him at all. All there is in this case, as reflected by the affidavit, is that a computer technician told his supervisor who then told Mr. Eng that there was what the computer technician believed to be child pornography on a customer’s computer. The court’s statement that, as an experienced law-enforcement officer, Mr. Eng was familiar with the statutory meaning of “child pornography” is of uncertain relevance: Mr. Eng did not see any of the images and would thus have no basis to conclude whether they met the statutory definition or not.
A look at United States v. Koelling, 992 F.2d 817 (8th Cir.1993), on which the court relies, is instructive. There the affiant had *635personally seen pictures containing child pornography and was a postal inspector who had dealt with many child pornography investigations over the years. Id. at 818-19. The affiant also provided details as to what exactly the relevant images depicted rather than just using the conclu-sory phrase “child pornography” to describe their content. Id. at 819. This affidavit contained non-hearsay statements and specific factual recitations, which distinguishes it significantly from Mr. Eng’s affidavit.
I also do not think on balance that Mr. Eng is entitled to the benefit of the so-called Leon good-faith exception. As I have already said, the affidavit lacks the information necessary to establish the existence of probable cause. The affidavit was based solely on hearsay information and contained no detail as to what Mr. Lewis saw. The fact that Mr. Eng heard from Ms. Sundstrom that Mr. Grant described the images as “raunchy” to Mr. Lewis is not only double hearsay, it is virtually irrelevant because the term “raunchy” could apply to any number of things, including legal adult pornography. Though the question is close, and its answer requires making a difficult judgment, I conclude that it was unreasonable for an officer to believe that the affidavit in this case was sufficient.
The court lauds Mr. Eng for seeking a search warrant and endorses the district court’s finding that doing so was the “antithesis of bad faith, and extremely strong evidence of good faith.” But the fact that Mr. Eng sought a warrant is not relevant to the question of whether the affidavit could reasonably have been regarded as establishing probable cause. Assuming, even, that Mr. Eng faced exigent circumstances, which the court asserts he did and which I deny, that fact has no impact on the question of whether it was reasonable to think that the affidavit created a reasonable probability that a search of the computer would reveal child pornography. The affidavit stands on its own, whatever Mr. Eng’s motives may have been, and its objective sufficiency is entirely distinct from his subjective state of mind. I don’t think that Mr. Eng’s motives were bad, I simply think that it was objectively unreasonable for him to rely on the affidavit as it stood to obtain a search warrant.
For the reasons given, I would reverse the judgment of the district court.