FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT l will
FOR THE D]STR!CT OF COLUMBIA Cl€rk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts fur the District of columbia
lN THE l\/IATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
BLACK IPH()NE 4. S/N NOT AVAI[JABLE l\/lagistrate Case No. 14-235 (Jl\/IF)
IN THE l\/[ATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
SAl\/ISUNG SGH-T989 AKA GALAXY S ll l\/lagistrate Case No. l4-236 (Jl\/ll~`)
CELLULAR TELEPHONE ll\/lEl
359858/()4/53l905/8, S/N
RSICCIZPDBN
lN THE l\/IATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
SAl\/ISUNG SGH-SlSOG CELLULAR l\/lagistrate Case No. 14-237 (Jl\/IF)
TELEPHONE, BLACK IN COLOR. ll\/lEl
564082/05/308324/2, S/N
R2lD595lDTV
IN THE l\/IATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
WESTERN DlGlT/\l. TV. S/N l\/lagistrate Case No. l4-238 (Jl\/lF)
WNT29l0l9l73
lN THE l\/IATTER OF THE SEARCH ()F
WESTERN DIGITAI. HARD DRIVE. S/N l\/lagistrate Case No. 14-239 (.ll\/IF)
WCAUKl34l857
lN THE l\/l/\TTER OF Tl~~lE SEARCH OF
WESTERN DlGlTAL l\/IYBOOK ESSENTIAL l\/lagistrate Case No. 14-240 (Jl\/lF)
HARD DRIVE, S/N WCAZA§OISOOQ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are six Applications for search and seizure warrants pursuant to
Rule 41 ofthe Federal Rules ofCriminal Procedurc for various electronic devices that were
seized in a hotel room in Solomons, l\/laryland. §e_e /\ffidavit ln Suz;port ofSearch Warrant at 8
(hereinafter the "At`tidavit").' Three ofthese Applications use inaccurate. formulaic language;
the other three fail to lintit the scope ofthe search and seizure to data for which there is probable
l Beczulse the C`lerl<`s ofliee does not incle.\ filings on l,(`l~` for a search warrant application until after an order has
been issued granting or deriyrng an 'applieation_ this opinion cannot reference specific l{Cl~` liling numbers
cause and do not provide the Court with any indication of how the search will be conducted. For
the reasons stated below, the governinent’s Applications for search and seizure warrants will be
denied.
I. Background
Each of tlie six Applieatioris is based on the same /\t`fclavit.: and each pertains to an
investigation ofthe distribution and possession ofchilcl pornography. According to the Affidavit,
an undercover officer coinmunicated with a suspect and eventually arranged to meet him at a
Holida_v lnn in Solomons, l\/lar_\'land. Affidavit at 6-7. Pursuant to a search warrant executed on
that hotel room. the government seized: l) an iPhone 4; 2) a Samsung SGH-T989 cell phone; 3)
a Samsung SGH-SlSOG cell phone; 4) a Western Digital TV; 5) a Western Digital hard drive;
and 6) a Western Digital l\/lybook Essential hard drive. l_d. at 8. Each Application seeks a search
and seizure warrant that will perinit the government to search these devices because the
government believes they contain "evidence ofthe distribution and possession of child
pornography" in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(A)(2) and 2252/\(a)(5)(B).3
Using a standard format. each Application contains an "Attachineiit A" that describes the
device to be searched and an "Attachment B," which lists "Specif`ic lteins to Be Seized."
Affidavit at l l. Each Attaehment B is identical:
ATTACHMENT B
SPECIFIC ITEMS T() BE SEIZED
All records contained in the cellular telephones listed in Attachment /\. including:
l. Any inloi'mation, including text and instant inessages, relating to the
transportation_ travel. entieement_ or sexual conduct involving a minor;
2. Evidence of user attribution showing who had doininion, ownership, custody,
or control ofthe device at the time the communications described in this
2 The only difference between each /\ffidavit is that each has a different device described on the second page.
j /\ll references to the United States (,`ode are to the electronic versions that appear in Westla\\' or l.exis.
2
warrant were creatcd. edited. or deleted, such as logs, phonebool['Usa v. Western Digital Tv, S/n: Wnt291019173']
Combined Opinion