## Facts

- Federal agents investigated Samuel Pratt for operating a prostitution operation involving juveniles.
- Agents located an online advertisement offering the sexual services of a 17-year-old (RM) at a hotel in Columbia, South Carolina.
- An undercover agent arranged to meet RM at the hotel; after identifying as law enforcement, RM stated she was 17, was prostituting at the hotel, and had been transported across state lines by Pratt.
- RM reported she had texted nude photographs of herself to Pratt’s phone and permitted agents to take her own phone.
- Agents approached Pratt in the hotel parking lot while he was holding an iPhone; he acknowledged the phone was his and admitted he had nude photos of RM on it.
- Agents seized Pratt’s iPhone without his consent and told him they would obtain a search warrant; Pratt refused to provide the passcode.
- The government did not obtain a warrant to search the iPhone until 31 days after the seizure; the search yielded nude images of RM and incriminating text messages.
- Pratt was indicted on eight counts involving sex trafficking and child pornography; he moved to suppress the cellphone evidence and objected to admission of RM’s out-of-court statements.
- The district court denied suppression and admitted RM’s statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing; the jury convicted Pratt on all counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment was violated by the government’s 31-day delay in obtaining a warrant to search a lawfully seized cellphone, requiring suppression of the phone evidence.
2. Whether RM’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine based on Pratt’s alleged efforts to prevent her testimony.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held the 31-day delay in seeking a warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the cellphone evidence should have been suppressed.
- The suppression error was not harmless as to the two child-pornography counts because the remaining evidence did not establish the required elements for those offenses.
- The court upheld admission of RM’s statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing based on evidence that Pratt engaged in conduct, including jail calls, intended to dissuade RM from testifying.
- The court vacated the two child-pornography convictions, affirmed the remaining six convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the surviving counts.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless seizure of a cellphone supported by probable cause may be permissible initially, but the continued seizure must remain reasonable in duration under the Fourth Amendment.
- Reasonableness of a continued seizure requires balancing the individual’s possessory interest against the government’s justification and diligence in obtaining a warrant; internal indecision about where to apply for a warrant does not, by itself, justify a lengthy delay.
- Suppression error is not harmless when the improperly admitted evidence is central to proving essential elements of particular counts.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) and related confrontation principles, a defendant forfeits hearsay and confrontation objections if the defendant wrongfully acts with the intent to cause, and does cause, a witness’s unavailability.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit ruled that retaining Pratt’s seized cellphone for 31 days before obtaining a search warrant was an unreasonable continued seizure, requiring suppression and vacatur of the child-pornography convictions, while separately affirming the admission of the victim’s statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing and remanding for resentencing on the remaining convictions.


United States v. Pratt, 915 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2019)