Did the FBI act in good-faith when it indicated to a magistrate judge that property to be searched pursuant to a search warrant application was located in the Eastern District of Virginia, when in fact the true place to be searched was computers throughout the country, the vast majority of which were beyond the geographic limits of the magistrate's authority?

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated a child pornography website known as “Playpen.” The FBI seized the website and continued to operate it in an attempt to identify its users. Law enforcement sought and obtained a search warrant to deploy a Network Investigative Technique (“NIT”). The warrant, which authorities used to search thousands of computers across the world, was issued by a magistrate judge sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia. The NIT worked by deploying a code to a Playpen user’s computer that would in return transfer information to law enforcement, including the internet protocol address (‘TP Address”) of that user, thus allowing the FBI to identify the computer’s location. The FBI deployed the NIT for approximately two weeks while they continued to operate Playpen and child pornography continued to be disseminated, downloaded, and shared around the world. The question presented is: I) Did the FBI act in good-faith when it indicated to a magistrate judge that property to be searched pursuant to a search warrant application was located in the Eastern District of Virginia, when in fact the true place to be searched was computers throughout the country, the vast majority of which were beyond the geographic limits of the magistrate’s authority?