Background
In October 2021, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents in Puerto Rico received notice of illegal child pornography exchanges in an online chatroom. Through investigation, agents identified a participant using phone number ending in -7611. After serving T-Mobile with a summons, agents learned the number was registered to Miguel González-Arocho and assigned to a gray Apple iPhone 6s 64GB with IMEI number ending in -1711. Based on this information, HSI Task Force Agent Albert Villanueva, an experienced investigator with nearly ten years of service, applied for and obtained a magistrate judge’s search warrant in May 2022.
The warrant explicitly identified the property to be searched as an “Apple iPhone 6S 64GB IMEI: [***-1711]” belonging to González. The warrant defined this device as “the DEVICE” and authorized seizure and forensic examination of that specific phone. One week later, agents executed the warrant by intercepting González outside his home. However, instead of seizing the iPhone 6s described in the warrant, agents seized an iPhone 13 Pro Max—a physically different device model with the same phone number. Agents then questioned González in Spanish, obtained his passcode, and searched the iPhone 13, discovering over 100 files of child pornography.
González moved to suppress all evidence, arguing the warrant did not authorize search of the iPhone 13. The government asserted González consented and alternatively invoked the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the suppression motion, holding that the good faith exception did not apply because agents knew they had seized a device different from the one specified in the warrant and made no effort to resolve the discrepancy.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed the suppression order. The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply when agents knowingly seize and search an electronic device different from the one explicitly described in a warrant, without taking steps to clarify the discrepancy. The government failed to meet its “heavy burden” of demonstrating objective good faith on these facts.
The court emphasized that the warrant was unambiguous: it explicitly identified the iPhone 6s with a specific IMEI number as “the DEVICE” to be searched. The warrant was device-specific, not merely phone-number-specific. Agent Villanueva himself acknowledged understanding that “the search warrant [is] for the device” and that a phone number alone does not authorize search of any device bearing that number. The warrant’s probable cause affidavit further focused on the specific iPhone 6s as the repository for child pornography evidence, discussing how the device’s hardware would store such material.
Critically, the agents knew immediately—indeed, just “by seeing it”—that they had seized an iPhone 13, not an iPhone 6s. Villanueva conceded this at the suppression hearing and documented the iPhone 13 in the inventory form on the same day of the search. Yet despite knowing they possessed the wrong device, agents neither informed González of the specific iPhone model described in the warrant, nor asked whether he still owned the iPhone 6s, nor took any clarifying steps before conducting the search. The court found this combination of factors—knowledge of the discrepancy, failure to disclose critical warrant details to González, and absence of any attempt to resolve the mismatch—fatal to any good faith claim.
Key Takeaways
- Warrant specificity matters: When a warrant describes a specific electronic device by model and unique identifier (IMEI), agents must search that device, not a different one bearing the same phone number.
- Good faith exception requires clarity and reasonable effort: Agents cannot rely on good faith when they know they have seized the wrong device and make no effort to confirm whether they may legally proceed.
- Unintentional mistakes may preclude good faith: Even if agents did not deliberately omit warrant details when explaining them to the suspect, “unintentional mistakes may still preclude the application of the good faith exception” when exclusion serves to deter police misconduct.
- Detailed device specifications are essential, not peripheral: Physical descriptors like model number and IMEI are critical to warrant scope—they are not “nonessential” particulars, especially in an age when individuals may possess multiple similar devices.
- Trained agents are held to higher standards: Agents with training and experience distinguishing between iPhone models cannot credibly claim reasonable confusion between an iPhone 6s and iPhone 13.
Why It Matters
This decision provides significant Fourth Amendment protection for smartphone searches. The court recognized that smartphones are “minicomputers” posing serious privacy concerns—a search may be more intrusive than a search of one’s home. By affirming suppression despite the agents’ discovery of 100+ child pornography files, the court prioritized warrant compliance and deterrence of sloppy warrant execution over law enforcement convenience. The holding forecloses an easy path for prosecutors: agents cannot simply search a device matching a phone number and invoke good faith when the warrant clearly specified a different device.
The decision also establishes a practical requirement for law enforcement: once agents realize they have seized a device differing from the warrant’s description, they must take reasonable steps to resolve the discrepancy—asking whether the suspect still possesses the target device, or obtaining a new warrant covering the seized device. The court’s emphasis on the agents’ failure to ask a single clarifying question signals that such inquiries are not burdensome but routine obligations. This standard applies regardless of whether agents are pursuing serious crimes like child exploitation; the Fourth Amendment’s protections apply uniformly.