## Facts

- Rebecca Christie lived on an Air Force base within federal jurisdiction and was prosecuted in federal court for conduct resulting in her three-year-old daughter’s death.
- Evidence at trial showed Christie spent long, daily hours playing online games on her computer and often failed to meet the child’s basic needs.
- When Christie’s husband deployed out of state, the child was left primarily in Christie’s care; nine days later the child died from dehydration associated with neglect.
- Investigators obtained a warrant to search Christie’s computer for records relating to the child’s murder, neglect, and abuse, including materials reflecting Christie’s and the child’s “day-to-day activities” during a defined period.
- The computer search yielded evidence used at trial about Christie’s routines and activities during the relevant period.
- A jury convicted Christie of second-degree murder and child-abuse offenses; the district court denied her motion to suppress computer evidence and limited certain defense witnesses.
- Christie appealed the Fourth Amendment suppression ruling and the witness exclusions under the Sixth Amendment; the government cross-appealed sentencing issues involving the Assimilative Crimes Act and double jeopardy.

## Issues

1. Whether the computer-search warrant lacked Fourth Amendment particularity by authorizing review of broad categories of “all records and information” showing “day-to-day activities.”
2. Whether agents executed the warrant in a manner that exceeded its scope and became an unconstitutional general search.
3. Whether exclusion or limitation of certain defense witnesses violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
4. Whether the district court erred in sentencing under the Assimilative Crimes Act and the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court in all material respects.
- The court held the computer-search warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment because, read as a whole, it was tied to specific offenses and bounded by a relevant time frame.
- The court held the search execution was reasonable and within the warrant’s scope given the realities of digital storage and file intermingling.
- The court held the district court’s witness rulings did not violate the Sixth Amendment and fell within permissible evidentiary discretion.
- The court rejected the government’s cross-appeal and upheld the district court’s sentencing approach under the Assimilative Crimes Act and double-jeopardy constraints.

## Legal Principles

- A digital-search warrant may authorize review of broad categories of computer data if it is meaningfully limited by (1) a clear nexus to specific crimes under investigation and (2) temporal or subject-matter constraints that guide officers’ discretion.
- The Fourth Amendment does not require computer warrants to specify ex ante a file-by-file search method; agents may need to examine many files to determine whether they fall within the warrant’s authorized categories.
- A search does not become a general search merely because agents must review substantial portions of a hard drive, so long as the examination remains directed to the warrant’s stated evidentiary targets.
- Trial courts retain broad discretion to exclude cumulative or weakly probative defense evidence; evidentiary limits do not violate the Sixth Amendment if the defendant can still present the core defense theory.
- In federal enclave prosecutions involving assimilated state offenses, sentencing and count structure must account for overlaps with federal law and avoid double punishment for the same offense conduct.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Christie’s convictions and sentence, concluding that the computer-search warrant and its execution were sufficiently constrained to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, that the witness limitations did not violate the Sixth Amendment, and that the district court properly handled Assimilative Crimes Act and double-jeopardy concerns.


United States v. Christie, 717 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2013)