## Facts

- California state officers obtained a state search warrant to search a Merced County residence where Michael Clay Payton lived during a drug investigation.
- The warrant’s attachment listed methamphetamine-related items and paper-type “sales ledgers” and “financial records,” but did not expressly mention computers or digital storage.
- The supporting affidavit requested permission to search any computer in the residence, though the officer had no particular basis to believe a computer would be present.
- During execution, officers found no evidence of drug sales.
- An officer located a computer in Payton’s bedroom, moved the mouse to deactivate the screen saver, and opened a file, revealing an image the officer believed depicted child pornography.
- The computer images led to federal charges for possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4).
- Payton moved to suppress, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause due to an asserted misrepresentation and that the computer search exceeded the warrant’s scope.
- The district court denied suppression; Payton entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether searching and opening files on Payton’s computer exceeded the scope of a warrant that listed drugs and paper-type records but did not expressly authorize computer searches.
2. Whether the warrant lacked probable cause due to an alleged misrepresentation (not reached because the scope issue was dispositive).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Payton’s suppression motion.
- The court held that the officers’ search of the computer exceeded the scope of the warrant and violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The court remanded with instructions to allow Payton to withdraw his conditional guilty plea.

## Legal Principles

- The permissible scope of a search is controlled by the objective terms of the warrant; executing officers must remain within what the warrant expressly or reasonably authorizes.
- A supporting affidavit or an issuing judge’s unexpressed intent cannot expand the warrant beyond what the warrant actually states.
- When a warrant is silent as to computers or digital media, officers generally may not treat a computer search as automatically included within authority to search for listed records; opening files constitutes a search of digital contents requiring explicit warrant authorization.
- Evidence discovered as the product of a search exceeding the warrant’s scope is subject to suppression as fruit of the unlawful search.

## Conclusion

Because the warrant did not expressly authorize searching computers, opening files on Payton’s computer exceeded the warrant’s scope and violated the Fourth Amendment; the resulting images were suppressible, and Payton was entitled to withdraw his conditional guilty plea on remand.


United States v. Payton, 573 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2009)