United States v. Horton, No. 16-3976 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseNone of the exceptions to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 expressly allow a magistrate judge in one jurisdiction to authorize the search of a computer in a different jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained through a warrant authorizing a search of their respective computers through the use of a Network Investigative Technique (NIT). Defendants were separately indicted for accessing child pornography. The court held that the execution of the NIT in this case required a warrant and the NIT warrant exceeded the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. The NIT warrant was void ab initio, rising to the level of a constitutional infirmity. However, because there was no reckless disregard for the truth and law enforcement did not demonstrate bad faith, the Leon exception applied in this case.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Fenner, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in granting defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained through a warrant authorizing a search of their computers through the use of a Network Investigative Technique (NIT); the NIT warrant issued in this case was issued in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 and exceeded the magistrate judge's jurisdiction because a magistrate judge in one jurisdiction (here, the Eastern District of Virginia) cannot authorize the search of the content of a computer in another jurisdiction (here, the Southern District of Iowa) and none of the exceptions to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 41 suggested by the government, including the tracking-device exception in Rule 41(b)(4), apply here; while the warrant was void ab initio, the Leon exception can apply to such situations and Leon should be applied here as there was no bad faith or reckless disregard for the truth; further the marginal benefit of deterring such warrants would be outweighed by the heavy costs to the justice system of such a ruling. Judge Fenner, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.