Two on collateral estoppel or law of the case

Defendant was indicted in 2012 for child pornography on a school computer. The trial court suppressed and the state dismissed. Six years later the case started anew with new counts. Jeopardy never attached in the first case, and not imposing collateral estoppel on the state does not nullify the Fourth Amendment. This time the search was sustained. Coworkers looked at the computer for lesson plans and accidentally discovered child pornography which they turned over to the police. They were not state actors for Fourth Amendment purposes. State v. Young, 2024 Ariz. App. LEXIS 76 (June 13, 2024).

Defendant’s motion to suppress electronic devices was denied and he was convicted. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, the government got another search warrant and seized the same devices. The doctrine of law of the case under the exclusionary rule doesn’t mean that the exclusionary rule applies in perpetuity. The second search on different information was valid. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105148 (E.D. Ky. June 13, 2024):

Even though the government was sent back to square one, it was not by any means barred from obtaining the previously suppressed evidence through legal means. Thus, the government would be free to obtain a new warrant and seize Mr. Lewis’s electronics so long as the new warrant is supported by probable cause through independent means. See United States v. Vilar, 530 F. Supp. 2d 616, 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“it is well-settled that the independent source doctrine may apply where, as here, the Government executed a later, lawful ‘reseizure’ of evidence that was originally seized by means of an unlawful search.”) (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 541-42, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988)). Indeed, that is precisely what the government is attempting to do here. The parties are not relitigating an issue that has already been decided. Nor is the Court expanding its inquiry past the Sixth Circuit’s mandate. The issue at hand—whether the 2023 warrant is valid—is wholly distinct from the issue decided by the Court of Appeals. And this Court’s consideration of the 2023 warrant’s validity fits squarely within the Sixth Circuit’s mandate, which is to proceed this case forward. Because the Court is not crossing track that has already been lain, and because the Court is not going beyond the Sixth Circuit’s mandate, proceeding to consider the validity of the 2023 warrant is appropriate.