United States v. Gray

Agents executed a search warrant at the home of Montgomery Gray (defendant) in connection with an investigation of computer hacking at a library. The warrant authorized a search for library documents and hacker materials. Four computers were seized. While a hard drive was being copied, an agent followed his routine practice of opening and looking briefly at each file contained in the directories and subdirectories. The agent opened a subdirectory entitled “Teen” that contained several files with the suffix .jpg, which commonly denoted a picture file. Although no materials specified in the warrant were believed to be .jpg files, the agent knew based on experience that hackers often mislabel incriminating files or bury them within innocuously named directories. The “Teen” subdirectory contained pornographic pictures, but the agent was uncertain whether minors were depicted. The agent continued to search and saw a subdirectory entitled “Tiny Teen.” The agent opened the subdirectory as part of his routine practice of opening all subdirectories. After discovering pornographic pictures that appeared to depict minors, the agent obtained a warrant to search Gray’s computer files for child pornography. Gray was charged with possession of child pornography and moved to suppress the evidence found on his computer, arguing that the search of the “Teen” and “Tiny Teen” subdirectories exceeded the scope of the warrant.