U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Va-Alexandria Div.

Of interest to those who find their servicemember client is appearing in the EDVA. And perhaps of broader interest to practitioners.

United States v. Guinsler, No. 4:26-cr-7. Guinsler was charged with CSAM, identified through a cypertip based on his Snapchat.

Is a search authorization issued to Army CID valid in a federal prosecution?

Guisler argued for suppression based on the search authorization's lack of particularity. The military magistrate's authorization allowed

the search of Defendant's residence at Joint Base Langley Eustis and his vehicles (for personal electronic devices) and any seized devices (for "messages, chats, emails, application data, user data, web content, images, and video's in active/inactive files to include deleted files/folders and any other information pertaining to this investigation").  The military search authorization also authorized the search of "[a]ll records on the [Personal Electronic Devices] described in Attachment that relate to violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252, 2252A, and Articles 134, UCMJ...."
. . . 
Defendant contends that the military search authorization in this case failed to set any temporal restrictions on the search of Defendant's personal electronic devices, in violation of the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In opposition, the Government argues that the search warrant for Defendant's electronic devices establishes probable cause and particularity, and even if the Court found the search warrant invalid, suppression is unwarranted because law enforcement acted in good faith.

The judge does not discuss Lattin, a CAAF case, while not dispositive, potentially informative, on a similar issue. See, United States v. Lattin and Lattin v. United States (pet. denied).

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.