No. 18-6734

Henry Franklin Reddick v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 4th-amendment child-pornography civil-rights digital-privacy digital-search fourth-amendment hash-value private-search private-search-doctrine search-and-seizure warrant-requirement
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2019-04-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment by opening a digital file and viewing an image in it without a warrant to confirm a private company's statement that the image is child pornography

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED I. Does a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment by opening a digital file and viewing an image in it without a warrant to confirm a private company’s statement that the image is child pornography based solely on the company’s comparison of the hash value of the image and the hash value in a digital database said to contain known child pornography when there is no evidence that the database actually contains images of child pornography, how the images in it were selected, or who selected them? IL. Does a police officer go beyond a private company’s search, which merely compared the hash value of a digital file to hash values in a digital database said to contain known child pornography, by opening the file and viewing an image in it without a warrant to confirm that the image is child pornography? Ill. Has this Court’s holding in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123-25 (1984) — that it was not a search for the government to field test white powder revealed to private employees when a package was damaged — been abrogated by the property rights analysis of the Fourth Amendment in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)? See United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292, 1307 (10th Cir. 2016) (per Gorsuch, J.). 1

Docket Entries

2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-03-21
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-02-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 21, 2019.
2019-02-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 19, 2019 to March 21, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 19, 2019.
2019-01-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 18, 2019 to February 19, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 18, 2019.
2018-12-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 19, 2018 to January 18, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2018)

Attorneys

Reddick
H. Michael SokolowFederal Public Defender, Petitioner
H. Michael SokolowFederal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent