31-Day Delay In Obtaining Searh Warrant Violated Fourth Amendment

US v. Pratt: While investigating Pratt for running a prostitution ring (that included minors), FBI agents got ahold of a girl, RM, who said she was one of Pratt’s prostitutes. She said that Pratt, her “boyfriend,” had brought her to North Carolina from South Carolina and that she had texted him nude pictures of herself. An agent the confronted Pratt, who admitted having pictures of RM on his phone. The agent seized the phone, but no warrant to search it was obtained until 31 days later. A search uncovered child pornography and “incriminating text conversations with RM and others.” Pratt was charged with, among other things, production and possession of child pornography. Pratt unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his phone and was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, Pratt challenged two aspects of his convictions. First, he argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The Fourth Circuit agreed and held that the two child pornography counts had to be vacated. The court held that the delay in obtaining the warrant to search the phone was unreasonable and interfered with Pratt’s possessory interest in the phone. The court rejected the Government’s argument that the delay was reasonable because there was doubt as to whether the warrant should be sought in North Carolina (where it was seized) or South Carolina (where Pratt was eventually prosecuted), noting that “that decision shouldn’t have taken a month.” Furthermore, the court held that the phone itself had evidentiary value that would have allowed the Government to retain it, as opposed to the actual contents of the phone. Without the evidence from the phone there was insufficient evidence to support the child pornography charges. Pratt’s second argument was that the district court erred by allowing RM’s statements to be presented to the jury even though she did not testify. The court disagreed, holding that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine applied because Pratt had convinced RM not to testify.