Eric Tompkins was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and possessing child pornography. During a forensic examination of his Samsung cellular phone pursuant to a warrant seeking evidence of his failure to register, investigators discovered images of child pornography on a SanDisk SD card inserted into the phone. The initial warrant described the phone as the subject device but did not explicitly name the SD card. After finding four images, investigators obtained a second warrant that specifically listed both the phone and the SD card, revealing over two dozen additional images. Tompkins moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the first warrant did not authorize the search of the SD card because it was a separate device with its own serial number, and that the second warrant was tainted by this initial error.
The Second Circuit analyzed the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, emphasizing that warrants must define the search location with 'practical accuracy' rather than technical precision. The court examined the text of the April 2019 warrant, which authorized a search of the cellular phone for information 'in whatever form and by whatever means… created or stored, including any form of computer or electronic storage (such as flash memory or other media that can store data).' The court reasoned that an SD card inserted into a phone is not a separate device but an extension of the phone's storage capabilities. Citing expert testimony that SD cards function as additional storage that the phone's operating system utilizes, the court concluded the warrant clearly contemplated the search of any electronic storage attached to the device. The court rejected Tompkins's argument that the SD card's removability or unique serial number made it a distinct place to be searched, noting that warrants should be interpreted in a 'commonsense and realistic' manner. Consequently, the search of the SD card was fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion without needing to address the district court's reliance on the good faith exception.
The decision clarifies that search warrants for electronic devices broadly covering 'electronic storage' or 'flash memory' will likely be interpreted to include attached SD cards without the need for specific identification in the warrant text. This reinforces the 'practical accuracy' standard in digital searches, reducing the risk of suppression motions based on technical distinctions between a phone and its attached storage media. The judgment is affirmed, and the conviction stands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download