## Facts

- Youssef Samir Megahed was a college student who lived with his parents in Florida.
- Megahed took a road trip with another student, and during a traffic stop in South Carolina law enforcement found items described as explosives in the vehicle.
- Megahed was arrested and later federally indicted for transporting explosive materials in interstate commerce without a permit and related explosives offenses.
- FBI agents went to Megahed’s family residence while Megahed was not home and asked to search for bombs, bomb-making materials, and related evidence.
- Megahed’s father, Samir Megahed, signed a written consent allowing agents to search the home and seize items connected to the investigation; agents took a family desktop computer.
- Samir asked that the computer be returned after the FBI copied the hard drive.
- The next day, Samir executed an additional written consent that specifically authorized the FBI to search the computer.
- The FBI created a “mirror image” (forensic copy) of the hard drive and returned the physical computer to Samir.
- About two months later, Megahed and his parents attempted to revoke any consent to search the computer and sought to stop any further review of the hard-drive copy.
- The FBI continued examining the already-created mirror image and discovered Internet history information.
- Megahed filed a second motion to suppress the computer evidence and requested an evidentiary hearing, arguing the search was invalid under Georgia v. Randolph, exceeded the consent, and was barred by the later withdrawal of consent.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia v. Randolph bars reliance on a co-occupant’s consent when the defendant co-occupant was absent and did not contemporaneously object.
2. Whether a third party’s later withdrawal of consent prevents the government from examining a forensic mirror image that was created while valid consent existed.
3. Whether the father had authority to consent to the seizure, imaging, and search of the family computer, and whether the forensic examination stayed within the consent given.
4. Whether the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion.

## Decision

- The court denied Megahed’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the forensic examination of the hard-drive mirror image.
- The court held Randolph inapplicable because Megahed was not physically present to refuse consent when his father consented, and the government did not cause Megahed’s absence.
- The court found the father had actual (and at least apparent) authority as a co-occupant to consent to the home search and to the seizure/imaging and later search of the computer.
- The court ruled that once the FBI lawfully obtained the mirror-image copy pursuant to valid consent, a later revocation did not retroactively bar the government from reviewing that copy.
- The court denied Megahed’s request for an evidentiary hearing because the record did not show a material factual dispute requiring live testimony.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when police obtain voluntary consent from a person with actual or apparent authority over the place or item searched. (United States v. Matlock; Illinois v. Rodriguez.)
- Georgia v. Randolph creates a narrow limit on third-party consent only when a co-occupant is physically present and expressly refuses consent at the time officers seek entry; it does not apply when the objector is absent and that absence was not engineered by law enforcement.
- Consent that authorizes seizure and copying of digital storage permits the government to retain the resulting forensic copy; later withdrawal of consent does not undo the lawful acquisition of that copy.
- A later review of a lawfully obtained copy is treated as part of the original authorized search and does not require a new warrant solely because consent was later revoked.
- An evidentiary hearing on a suppression motion is not required when the defendant fails to show a genuine dispute of material facts that would change the Fourth Amendment analysis.

## Conclusion

United States v. Megahed held that the FBI’s warrantless seizure, imaging, and later forensic review of a family computer were valid because Megahed’s father—an authorized co-occupant—voluntarily consented while Megahed was absent, Randolph did not bar reliance on that consent, and a later revocation could not prevent examination of a mirror image lawfully created during the period of valid consent.


United States v. Megahed, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24441 (2009)