## Facts

- Investigators suspected Ezra Griffith’s involvement in a gang-related shooting that had occurred about a year earlier.
- Police sought and obtained a warrant to search Griffith’s Washington, D.C. residence for evidence related to the shooting.
- The warrant authorized officers to seize “all cell phones and other electronic devices” found in the residence.
- The supporting affidavit relied mainly on the affiant’s experience that gang members commonly use cell phones and electronic devices to communicate about their activities.
- The affidavit provided almost no individualized basis to believe Griffith owned a cell phone or that a phone or device containing evidence of the shooting would be found in his apartment.
- While executing the warrant, officers seized multiple cell phones and recovered a handgun; officers asserted Griffith attempted to throw the handgun out a window during the search.
- Griffith, a convicted felon, was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after the district court denied his motion to suppress the firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrant lacked probable cause because the affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between electronic devices, the suspected offense, and Griffith’s home.
2. Whether the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad for authorizing seizure of “all cell phones and other electronic devices” in the residence.
3. Whether the Leon good-faith exception barred suppression despite any defects in probable cause or particularity.
4. Whether Griffith’s act of throwing the gun out the window constituted voluntary abandonment that purged any taint from an unlawful search.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed and vacated the conviction and ordered suppression of the firearm.
- The court held the warrant lacked probable cause to search the home for cell phones and electronic devices because it rested largely on generalized assumptions rather than case-specific facts tying such items to Griffith’s residence and the suspected shooting.
- The court held the warrant was overbroad because it authorized a sweeping seizure of all electronic devices without meaningful limitations connected to the alleged crime or to particular persons.
- The court held the government could not invoke the good-faith exception because the warrant was so deficient in indicia of probable cause and so facially broad that reliance on it was not objectively reasonable.
- The court rejected abandonment, concluding the disposal of the firearm during execution of the defective warrant was not sufficiently independent to break the causal chain.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause to suspect or arrest a person does not, by itself, establish probable cause to search that person’s home; the government must show a fair probability that evidence will be found in the place to be searched and in the items to be seized.
- Generalized claims about common cell-phone ownership and typical criminal use of phones are insufficient, without particularized facts, to justify a home search for digital devices.
- The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement forbids warrants that authorize indiscriminate seizure of broad categories of property, including “all” electronic devices, untethered to limits tied to the suspected offense and relevant custodians.
- Leon good-faith does not apply when a warrant is so lacking in indicia of probable cause, or so facially overbroad, that a reasonably well-trained officer would recognize its invalidity.
- Abandonment must be voluntary and not the product of unlawful police conduct; disposal of property during execution of an unconstitutional search may remain tainted and subject to suppression.

## Conclusion

The court required a concrete, individualized nexus before permitting a home search for ubiquitous digital devices and invalidated a warrant authorizing seizure of all electronic devices; because the warrant was unsupported by probable cause, overbroad, and not reasonably relied upon in good faith, the firearm recovered during the search was suppressed and the conviction vacated.


United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017)