United States v. Schlingloff

Agents obtained a warrant to search a residence for evidence of passport fraud. The warrant did not specifically authorize a search for videos. A laptop and an external storage device belonging to Christopher Schlingloff (defendant) were among the media devices seized during the search. An agent examined the devices using forensic-analysis software that indexed the files into viewable formats. The software permitted the user to apply a predefined filter or customize a filter based on the search’s purpose. If a contraband alert was enabled, the software would categorize files and flag known contraband files. The agent, pursuant to his standard operating procedure, enabled the filter that flagged known files containing child pornography. The filter alert identified two video files. The agent briefly opened the files and confirmed that they contained child pornography. A warrant was obtained to search Schlingloff’s laptop and storage device for evidence of child pornography. The search revealed 33 video files containing child pornography. Schlingloff was indicted for possession of child pornography. Schlingloff moved to suppress the evidence found during the forensic examination, arguing that the use of the filter to flag files containing child pornography enabled the agents to broaden a limited search for evidence of passport fraud into an unreasonable general search for evidence of any unlawful activity. The government (plaintiff) maintained that the child-pornography files were in plain view or would have been inevitably discovered in a manual search.