United States v. John C. Saville
United States District Court for the District of Montana
2013 WL 3270411, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88428 (2013)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
A detective reviewing information in the police department’s child-protection system observed a certain Internet protocol (IP) address giving query hit results for known child-pornography files. The detective learned that the IP address was associated with a Comfort Inn and concluded that someone was using the Comfort Inn’s wireless network and Shareaza, software for the peer-to-peer network Gnutella, to download child pornography. Gnutella was commonly associated with child-pornography transmission. To determine the wireless device’s location, the detective obtained a court order pursuant to the pen/trap statute, authorizing the use of pen-register and trap-and-trace devices (pen-trap devices) to obtain information regarding wireless communications in the Comfort Inn’s vicinity. The pen/trap statute permitted the use of pen-trap devices to capture dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information but not the content of electronic communications. The statute defined “content” as any information concerning a communication’s substance, purport, or meaning. The detective configured a device to search for “Gnutella” and “Shareaza” but not for terms like “preteen hardcore.” The device hit on Gnutella and sent emails containing routing and signaling information. Another device found the addresses of the wireless network adapters involved in the communications, leading the detective to a van parked near the Comfort Inn. The detective saw a laptop computer running on the seat and obtained a warrant to search the van. Two computers and four external storage drives were seized and found to contain child-pornography files. John Saville (defendant), the van’s occupant, was charged with receiving child pornography. Saville moved to suppress the evidence found in the van, arguing that the use of the pen-trap device captured content and was therefore an unlawful, warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. Saville’s expert testified that the emails the detective received contained a “header” with routing and signaling information and a “payload” containing the content of the communications. The expert maintained that Gnutella had to be characterized as “content” because it appeared in the payload. The detective testified that the information captured related to the initial communication between two computers and was only dialing, routing, and signaling information. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch issued findings and recommendations, concluding that the detective acted within the pen-trap order’s scope and recommending that Saville’s suppression motion be denied. Judge Lynch found that the term “Gnutella” was automatically generated by Saville’s computer before any exchange of information with another computer; said nothing about the substance, purport, or meaning of any communication by Saville; and therefore was not content as defined by the pen/trap statute. [Editor’s Note: Magistrate Judge Lynch’s findings and recommendations can be found at 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89281 (2013).]
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Christensen, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.