## Facts

- A Yahoo! chat user (“stevedragonslayer”) streamed videos depicting child pornography to another user in an online chat.
- The recipient preserved the chat and reported it to law enforcement.
- Investigators obtained non-content subscriber and connection data from Yahoo! under court orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), including IP addresses used to access the account.
- Investigators then obtained a § 2703(d) order to the internet service provider, which linked the relevant IP address to Steven C. Perrine as the subscriber during the identified time periods.
- Based on affidavits describing the chat incident, the subscriber/IP linkage, and Perrine’s prior child-pornography-related conviction, officers obtained warrants to search Perrine’s residence and computer equipment.
- Officers executed the warrants and found thousands of child-pornography images, firearms, and drug paraphernalia.
- Perrine admitted he used the “stevedragonslayer” account and had enabled peer-to-peer file sharing.
- Perrine moved to suppress evidence, arguing the subscriber/IP disclosures and resulting warrants violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Fourth Amendment, and that the warrants were stale and insufficiently particular.
- Perrine also moved to dismiss, claiming outrageous government conduct based in part on an alleged earlier return of a computer that still contained contraband files.
- The district court denied both motions; a jury convicted Perrine of child-pornography offenses, possession of a firearm by a felon, and forfeiture counts, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining subscriber and IP-address information from Yahoo! and the ISP under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) violated the ECPA or the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the search-warrant affidavits established probable cause, including whether the information was stale or insufficiently particular.
3. Whether suppression was barred by the Leon good-faith exception even if probable cause were lacking.
4. Whether the investigation and alleged prior handling of Perrine’s computer constituted outrageous government conduct requiring dismissal on due-process grounds.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the motion to dismiss, and affirmed the convictions.
- The court held Perrine had no reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber and IP-address information maintained by third-party service providers and obtained through § 2703(d) process.
- The court held the warrant affidavits supported probable cause; the timing of the information did not render it impermissibly stale given the nature of digital child-pornography evidence and the inferences about retention.
- The court concluded the warrants were sufficiently particular as to place and items to be seized.
- The court held that, in any event, officers’ reliance on the warrants was objectively reasonable under the Leon good-faith exception.
- The court held the government’s conduct did not meet the demanding standard for outrageous conduct; alleged errors in returning a computer with residual contraband were, at most, negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Non-content subscriber and connection records (including IP-address logs) held by third-party service providers are generally not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment when disclosed pursuant to lawful process.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) authorizes compelled disclosure of certain electronic records based on “specific and articulable facts” showing relevance and materiality to an ongoing criminal investigation.
- Probable cause and staleness are assessed in context, including the nature of the offense and the type of evidence sought; digital child-pornography evidence may support longer retention inferences.
- Under United States v. Leon, suppression is inappropriate when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, unless the affidavit is so deficient that reliance is unreasonable.
- Dismissal for outrageous government conduct is reserved for conduct that is fundamentally shocking and intolerable; negligence or investigative missteps typically do not satisfy due process.

## Conclusion

The court held that compelled disclosure of basic subscriber/IP records under § 2703(d) did not violate the ECPA or the Fourth Amendment, that the search warrants were supported by probable cause and not defeated by staleness or lack of particularity, that Leon independently barred suppression, and that the government’s conduct did not justify dismissal.


United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008)