In November 2001, a New Hampshire police department obtained a warrant to search the defendant Syphers’s apartment while investigating allegations that he had sexually assaulted three teenaged girls. In executing the warrant on November 5, 2001, the police seized a number of items, including the central processing unit (“CPU”) and other components of a desktop computer. Subsequently, on November 28, 2001, the state successfully obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the CPU, based on an application and sworn affidavit. The same day, the court allowed the state additional year to execute the search, on the ground that inspecting the CPU would require assistance from the state police, who were then faced with “an overwhelming backlog in similar computer crimes” and accordingly needed between nine and twelve months to complete the task. The application for additional time was not supported by a sworn affidavit.New Hampshire state police finished searching the CPU in June 2002, after spending seven months decoding the encryption which protected the file where the claimed pornographic images were allegedly discovered. Syphers was charged with and convicted of assault in a New Hampshire state court.
In June 2003, Syphers was indicted on the count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A. Syphers challenged the November 28, 2001 warrant on the grounds that the police officer’s description of the materials found in his apartment failed to establish probable cause that child pornography would be found on the CPU, and that the seizure of his computer for a full year following the issuance of the warrant was illegal. He therefore asked the court to suppress the images allegedly recovered from the CPU as the product of an unconstitutional search.
The District Court for New Hampshire held that the warrant for search of Syphers’s computer was supported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, because the police officer’s affidavit alleged sufficient facts to establish probable cause that the images on the computer were illegal (simulated pictures of apparent minors engaged in oral-genital contact). The defendant claimed that the warrant failed because simulated child pornography could not be the basis for probable cause following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, decided April 16, 2002, finding the “virtual child pornography” statute, 18 U.S.C. §2256 was unconstitutionally overbroad. The court nevertheless found that there was probable cause at the time of the warrant, which predated the Supreme Court decision and that the police search was in good faith because the warrant was consistent with the law existing at that time. This good faith exception precluded the application of exclusionary rule to the evidence allegedly recovered from the CPU.
The Court also ruled that the delay in searching the CPU was not improper, and if it was, the good faith exception to exclusionary rule applied and the evidence was admissible. First, the court found that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, disallowing extension of time for execution of warrant beyond 10 days, provided no basis for suppressing the images, since New Hampshire state officers were investigating Syphers’s allegations of state sexual assault charge at that time, and no federal authorities participated in obtaining the warrant. Second, the court found that the government did not need to present sworn testimony to extend the time to execute a valid warrant that had already issued. Even if the sworn testimony was necessary, it still would justify suppression, because the police did not act in bad faith. Additionally, the extension was reasonable in light of the explanation given for delay, and the police completed search five months ahead of deadline allowed by extension. Finally, the court concluded that the state acted in good faith and did not overstep any constitutional boundaries by seizing the CPU for seven months under the circumstances. Syphers’s motion to suppress evidence discovered on the CPU was therefore denied.