UNITED STATES v. Privacy International; Electronic Frontier Foundation; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amici Supporting Appellant. (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Andrew DARBY, Defendant-Appellant. Privacy International; Electronic Frontier Foundation; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amici Supporting Appellant.

No. 17-4212

Decided: May 08, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Andrew W. Grindrod, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Elizabeth M. Yusi, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Scarlet Kim, PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL, London, United Kingdom; James R. Theuer, JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Amicus Privacy International. Cindy Cohn, Mark Rumold, Andrew Crocker, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, BLUME FRANKLIN-BEST & YOUNG, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amicus National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Gerald Andrew Darby pled guilty, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2256(1) & (2) (2012). The district court sentenced Darby to 60 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Darby challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress.

In United States v. McLamb, 880 F.3d 685 (4th Cir. 2018), we addressed a substantially similar challenge to the same warrant at issue here and concluded that, even if the warrant was unconstitutional, the good faith exception precluded suppression of the evidence. Id. at 689-90. In light of McLamb, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Darby’s motion to suppress.

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law