Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say It's Cool If The FBI Broke The Law During Its Playpen Investigation

from the deterrents-never-used-will-rarely-exhibit-a-deterrent-effect dept

The seventh Appeals Court to weigh in [PDF] on the FBI's Network Investigative Technique deployed in the Playpen child porn investigation has weighed in. Unfortunately, it makes the Sixth Circuit the seventh appeals court to find the FBI's warrant problematic, but willing to apply the "good faith" band-aid.

The problem with the application of the "good faith exception" is it assumes good faith on behalf of the FBI. There's no reason to believe the FBI acted in good faith, though. While it was in the process of obtaining a single warrant allowing it to search computers all over the world, it was well aware Rule 41 limited searches to the jurisdiction where the warrant was obtained. It knew this because the DOJ was in the process of asking the Supreme Court and Congress to change Rule 41 to remove the jurisdiction limits while it was pursuing this investigation.

The Appeals Court grants good faith anyway, despite this background. It does do us (and the appellant) the favor of discussing good faith in light of the DOJ's simultaneous attempt to codify searches it was already performing, but just because the discussion is expanded a bit doesn't mean it makes much sense. Here's the opening of the Sixth Circuit's federal forgiveness pitch:

The good-faith exception is not concerned with whether a valid warrant exists, but instead asks whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that a search was illegal.

A "well-trained officer" should never have sought the search warrant in the first place, because a "well-trained officer" would have known search warrants were limited to the jurisdiction they were issued in. But the agent sought the warrant anyway and a magistrate judge actually approved it. The judge's approval means more to the Sixth Circuit than the FBI's bad faith proposition.

For the same reasons articulated in Master, we conclude that the good-faith exception is not categorically inapplicable to warrants found to be void ab initio. The difference between a state court judge acting without authority and a federal magistrate judge acting without authority is of little significance—in both instances, the individual who signed the warrant (arguably) had no power to do so. Master’s holding that the good-faith exception applies to one applies with equal force to the other. Accordingly, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is not categorically inapplicable to warrants that are void ab initio because of a magistrate judge’s jurisdictional error.

But the case cited (Master) isn't applicable to this situation. In that case, an officer presented a warrant request to the wrong county judge, accidentally obtaining permission to search outside of the judge's jurisdiction. A similar mistake could not have possibly been made with this warrant request. A federal magistrate -- whose jurisdiction covers an entire state -- could not have been mistakenly approached to grant permission to search an entire nation. The FBI's warrant affidavit clearly states it sought to search computers without knowing where any of the targets were located. The judge saw this and signed it anyway. Even if the judge blew the call, there's no way anyone can argue with a straight face the FBI did not know the warrant request violated the law as it stood when it requested permission to deploy its NIT.

It may have been "reasonable" for the FBI agent to rely on the issued warrant, but only if you ignore what was happening at the DOJ during the time this investigation was occurring. In fact, it can be argued this investigation and a similar one in 2014 expedited the DOJ's efforts on this front as it surely recognized some judges were going to find its NIT warrant invalid.

This explanation by the Sixth Circuit of its decision to extend good faith to the FBI agent doesn't help. In fact, it doesn't make sense.

But reasonable jurists have come to different conclusions about whether the NIT Warrant was valid. Compare United States v. Austin, 230 F. Supp. 3d 828, 833 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (finding the NIT Warrant does not violate Rule 41(b) because it is the equivalent of a “tracking device” and therefore falls under the ambit of Rule 41(b)(4)), with United States v. Croghan, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1080, 1089 (S.D. Iowa 2016) (concluding that the magistrate judge lacked authority to issue the NIT Warrant), overruled on other grounds by Horton, 863 F.3d at 1052. We cannot, therefore, expect officers to have known that this type of warrant was invalid at the time it was sought. See Workman, 863 F.3d at 1321 (“[I]f a violation took place, it has escaped the notice of eight federal judges who have held that the same warrant complied with federal law and the federal rules even though data was being extracted from computers outside the Eastern District of Virginia. . . . [E]xecuting agents could reasonably have made the same mistake and reasonably relied on the magistrate judge’s decision to issue the warrant.”).

The court is saying an FBI agent -- requesting a warrant in 2015 -- can be excused for his Rule 41 ignorance because court decisions made 1-2 years after the warrant was sought suggest the NIT warrant area might have been a bit more gray than previously imagined. Furthering the retroactive forgiveness, the court goes on to point out -- as others have -- that Rule 41 changes, which went into effect more than two years after the warrant was obtained, now makes this sort of search legal. Since suppressing evidence is supposed to deter bad behavior by law enforcement, a past abuse that has been codified into law does not present further opportunities for exactly this same abuse of authority.

Certainly it would be impossible to violate rights in the same exact way again, what with the rules having been changed following the abuses contained in this investigation. But the deterrent effect of suppression would discourage law enforcement from seeking permission to perform illegal searches, even if there's a chance those searches may become Constitutional in the future due to changes in the law. This is the court telling law enforcement to roll the dice in edge cases because you just never know what the future might bring. This encourages misconduct because it demonstrates the extent of the federal courts' capacity to forgive.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 6th circuit, doj, fbi, good faith, jurisdiction, playpen


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    discordian_eris (profile), 14 Jan 2019 @ 2:56pm

    Are you sure they weren't talking about rule 34? Occam's razor suggests it is more likely.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nathan F (profile), 14 Jan 2019 @ 3:14pm

    So if a citizen performs an act that is not currently against the law, then the law changes the government can't come back and prosecute them (assuming the act was a limited time thing and they didn't continue after the law changed).

    But it is perfectly fine for the government to perform an act that is against the law (and it KNOWS this) they can claim 'Oh good faith and besides.. the law changed in the mean time.'

    This so called Good Faith claim just sounds like an excuse by the various AG offices to arrest and charge someone they don't like but can't (legally) generate sufficient reason to prosecute.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2019 @ 3:23pm

      Re:

      This so called Good Faith claim just sounds like an excuse by the various AG offices to arrest and charge someone they don't like but can't (legally) generate sufficient reason to prosecute.

      This has been going on for a lot longer than Good Faith has been in the news.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2019 @ 5:24pm

      Re:

      No, this is saying "the government did something that was illegal at the time, but now it's legal, so penalizing the government doesn't matter."

      A citizen equivalent would be more like, "all these citizens were put in jail for marijuana crimes, but marijuana is legal now, so they should all be let out."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Killercool (profile), 14 Jan 2019 @ 7:19pm

        Re: Re:

        There really isn't a civilian equivalent, because the root of this whole issue is that the government got evidence illegally.

        If evidence is acquired illegally, it's inadmissible in court. Even if you use that illegal evidence to find "clean" evidence, all of that's illegal, too, if you can prove that's what happened. Parts of the Playpen investigation were DEFINITELY illegal at the time they were conducted, so the evidence was/is illegal. The whole reason these judgements are a problem is because they are using the fact that it's legal to investigate in that manner now to gloss over the fact that the FBI was breaking the law then. And they knew it.

        Good faith isn't even part of the equation here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2019 @ 4:25pm

    It helps to know the person sleeping with Your Honor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jan 2019 @ 6:01pm

    It was decided suspected terrorists get no rights...

    ...soon to follow, everyone a government official didn't like became a suspected terrorist.

    So what do we think is going to happen when it is established suspected pedophiles get no rights?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2019 @ 7:01pm

    Doesn't make sense?

    Government agency. Government judge. It isn't hard to figure out from there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2019 @ 7:40pm

    Gutless, spineless cowards in robes

    As always in cases like this, Grow a spine or get out.

    If you're not willing to follow the law and what it says, and enforce that on anyone in your court, whether they've got a badge or not, you have no business being a judge. Get out and let someone less corrupt and/or incompetent take your place, someone who believes that the law applies to everyone rather than just the peons.

    Cases like this highlight just how broken and corrupt the legal system(calling it the 'justice system' would be laughably wrong) in the US has become, with the very people who should be held to the highest and more stringent standards instead treated as though the law simply does not apply to them, allowing them to violate it not only with impunity but keep their otherwise illegally obtained evidence.

    The likes of Prenda and similar scum/parasites may ding and dirty the image and reputation of the legal system in the US by their actions abusing it(and more to the point how long they can get away with said actions), but ultimately they have nothing on judges like this when it comes to destroying respect for the legal system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Jan 2019 @ 11:10am

      Spinelessness

      The problem remains that judges decide for themselves if they have enough spine to stay in the job.

      Case in point (though, granted not a judge) President Trump will tell you he has the more spine than anyone he's ever encountered.

      So at this point we have to admit that our current system does not sustain a rule of law, rather it preserves a rule of lords.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2019 @ 2:47am

    Logically, if an officer has heard of the "good faith exception", then that exception can no longer be applied to him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Elisha (profile), 15 Jan 2019 @ 5:22am

    Cease and Desist Letter

    The likes of Prenda and similar scum/parasites may ding and dirty the image and reputation of the legal system in the US by their actions abusing it(and more to the point how long they can get away with said actions), but ultimately they have nothing on judges like this when it comes to destroying respect for the legal system.Linasdk

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    norahc, 15 Jan 2019 @ 9:28am

    Once again, this just goes to show that if you receive special training about the law and have a job that is to enforce those laws, you really can claim ignorance as an excuse.

    The rest of us peons have no such luxury.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 15 Jan 2019 @ 10:09am

    The defense lawyer should call the judge to the stand and ask, point-blank, whether he thinks those with badges have more rights than those without so as to get it on official record and show how questionable his decision really is. And also ask what inducements he may have been given to make the decision he did. And if he would still like his own ruling if he were the one of the victims of this case. And that if he finds the FBI's technique so problematic, why doesn't he do something about it? The defense lawyer should tell him his words mean nothing if his actions don't follow suit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rekrul, 15 Jan 2019 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      I've always wondered;

      I know it's not normal, but is it legally allowed to call a judge or even the prosecutor to the stand to answer questions related to the law?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 15 Jan 2019 @ 1:15pm

    You have to understand that when it comes to pedophiles or child porn, the majority of the law doesn't apply. Pretty much any violation of their rights is perfectly OK with the courts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Jan 2019 @ 2:01pm

      "When it comes to pedophiles or child porn..."

      You have to understand that when it comes to pedophiles or child porn, the majority of the law doesn't apply. Pretty much any violation of their rights is perfectly OK with the courts.

      Which leads to the perverse incentive by law enforcement to cultivate the ability to tag any suspect as a pedophile. A flash drive full of child porn may become more useful than plantable drugs or guns.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.