CA3: Cell phone warrant for CSAM could be broad because of possible hiding and misidentifying files

This CSAM cell phone warrant was broad, but that’s a recognition that files could have false names to hide them. It was not unreasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11323 (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2026):

The test for unconstitutional overbreadth involves a comparison between “the scope of the search and seizure authorized by the warrant [and] the ambit of probable cause established by the supporting affidavit.” In re Impounded Case (L. Firm), 840 F.2d 196, 200 (3d Cir. 1988). And here, while the initial warrant was broad, the affidavit in support established probable cause for the search of Christopher’s electronic devices. The affidavit alleged that surveillance of the Carpenter Street house revealed Christopher entering and exiting the residence, retrieving mail, and emptying the garbage — all indicia that he lived there. And, as the affidavit explained, there was reason to believe that the devices would contain, among other things, location information. In addition, the affidavit emphasized that the sought-after computer-file evidence of a SORNA violation would be concealed, perhaps with innocuous filenames or unusual storage locations. In the presence of those concerns, there was a “sufficient nexus between the evidence to be seized and the alleged offenses,” and the warrant was not overbroad. United States v. Am. Invs. of Pittsburgh, Inc., 879 F.2d 1087, 1106 (3d Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Ninety-Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars & Fifty-Seven Cents ($92,422.57), 307 F.3d 137, 149 (3d Cir. 2002) (“An overly broad warrant … authorizes the seizure of items as to which there is no probable cause.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 337-38 (7th Cir. 2018) (“A warrant may be thought ‘too general’ only if some more-specific alternative would have done better at protecting privacy while still permitting legitimate investigation. … [T]he police did not know where on his phone [the defendant] kept his [files] — and, if he had told them, they would have been fools to believe him ….”).