## Facts

- FBI agents went to Jason Trowbridge’s townhome to investigate his suspected role in a conspiracy that unlawfully accessed a commercial telephone database to make threatening calls, disrupt service, and place false 911 calls.
- Agents conducted a “knock and talk” and sought information connected to another suspect in the conspiracy.
- When agents arrived, Trowbridge’s girlfriend, Angela Roberson, said Trowbridge was not home.
- Agents smelled marijuana and observed two individuals flee by jumping a back fence.
- Roberson allowed agents to enter the home, where they observed drug paraphernalia.
- Agents saw several computers and a wireless router that would permit remote access to the computers.
- Agents called Trowbridge’s cell phone and heard it ringing upstairs, which suggested he might be present despite Roberson’s statement.
- While in the home and speaking with Roberson, agents developed probable cause to believe the computers contained evidence of the computer-crime conspiracy.
- Agents did not have a warrant to search or seize the computers at that time.
- Agents knew information indicating Trowbridge had previously boasted he could “take care of” investigating police and had instructed others to destroy evidence for him.
- Agents believed evidence on the computers could be quickly deleted or altered and that obtaining a warrant promptly would be difficult due to logistics, including traffic.
- Based on the perceived risk of imminent destruction of electronic evidence, agents seized the computers without searching their contents and placed them in an evidence-control room.
- Later, agents obtained a search warrant and performed a forensic search of the computers, finding incriminating evidence.
- Trowbridge moved to suppress, arguing the initial warrantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and raising Fifth and Sixth Amendment objections tied to the agents’ on-scene conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permitted agents to seize computers from Trowbridge’s home without a warrant where they had probable cause and feared imminent destruction of electronic evidence before a warrant could be obtained.
2. Whether the agents’ conduct during the encounter required suppression under the Fifth Amendment (Miranda/custodial interrogation principles) or the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

## Decision

- The court denied Trowbridge’s motion to suppress.
- The court held the agents had probable cause to believe the computers contained evidence of the suspected computer-crime conspiracy.
- The court held exigent circumstances justified a warrantless seizure because agents reasonably feared imminent destruction or alteration of electronic evidence and believed a warrant could not be obtained in time.
- The court found the agents did not improperly manufacture the exigency by using a lawful knock-and-talk.
- The court emphasized that agents seized and secured the computers but did not search their contents until after obtaining a warrant.
- The court rejected Fifth Amendment suppression because the encounter did not amount to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
- The court rejected Sixth Amendment suppression because the right to counsel had not attached in a way that barred the agents’ actions at the time of the encounter.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless seizure may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when officers have probable cause and exigent circumstances, including a reasonable belief that evidence will be destroyed before a warrant can be obtained.
- Exigent circumstances can exist for digital evidence where facts support a real risk that data can be quickly deleted, altered, or wiped, including through remote access.
- Courts distinguish between temporarily seizing property to preserve evidence and searching its contents; obtaining a warrant before examining digital contents supports admissibility when the seizure is lawful.
- Exigency is not defeated merely because officers approached the residence using a lawful knock-and-talk; the question is whether officers improperly created the emergency through unlawful or manipulative conduct.
- Miranda protections apply to custodial interrogation; voluntary, noncustodial questioning during an on-scene encounter generally does not require warnings.
- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is tied to the start of formal adversarial proceedings and is offense-specific.

## Conclusion

United States v. Trowbridge upheld the warrantless seizure of computers from a residence where agents had probable cause and reasonably feared that electronic evidence could be quickly destroyed before a warrant could be obtained; because agents secured the computers without searching them until after a warrant issued, and because the encounter did not trigger Fifth or Sixth Amendment suppression, the court denied the motion to suppress.


United States v. Trowbridge, 2007 WL 4226385 (2007)