Background
Richard Brillhart was convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography and sentenced to four hundred eighty months imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the warrantless search of a file identified by Google through hash matching, the double jeopardy implications of his dual convictions, and the application of a sentencing enhancement.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Google’s hash-value matching protocol is a valid private search because it provides virtual certainty that the file is identical to one previously reviewed by a human, meaning the government learned nothing new. The court further ruled that possession and distribution are distinct offenses under the Blockburger test. However, the court found the district court erred in applying the pattern-of-activity enhancement because a probation violation did not match the specific statutory references required by the Guidelines.
What it means going forward
Law enforcement may rely on hash-value matching by tech companies to justify warrantless searches of identical files without violating the Fourth Amendment, while sentencing courts must strictly adhere to statutory references when applying pattern-of-activity enhancements.