Eric Tompkins was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and possessing child pornography after federal agents discovered images on a SanDisk SD card inserted into his Samsung cellular phone. The investigation began when agents seized the phone following Tompkins's arrest for failing to register. A search warrant was issued to examine the phone for evidence of the registration violation. Because the phone was locked by a PIN, investigators examined the SD card, which was physically attached to the device, and found four images of child pornography. This discovery led to 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 that the first warrant only covered the phone itself and did not specifically identify the SD card as a place to be searched. The district court denied the motion, relying on the good faith exception, but Tompkins appealed the underlying Fourth Amendment scope issue.
The Second Circuit analyzed the scope of the April 2019 search warrant under the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The court emphasized that warrants must describe the place to be searched with 'practical accuracy' rather than absolute precision. The warrant in question authorized a forensic examination of the cellular phone to identify electronically stored 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 is a form of flash memory and, when inserted into the phone, functions as an extension of that device. Consequently, the warrant's language clearly encompassed the SD card. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the SD card was a separate device because it had its own serial number and was removable. Citing precedent, the court held that warrants do not need to list every component part of a device, especially when the warrant explicitly covers all forms of electronic storage. The court also noted that the fact that a second warrant later specifically identified the SD card did not invalidate the first warrant's scope. The opinion concluded that the search of the SD card was fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment, rendering the district court's denial of the suppression motion correct.
The decision clarifies that search warrants for electronic devices that broadly reference 'electronic storage' or 'flash memory' will likely cover attached removable media like SD cards without needing specific identification. This reinforces the 'practical accuracy' standard in digital searches, preventing challenges based on technical distinctions between a device and its internal components. The case is remanded to the district court to enforce the original judgment, and the conviction stands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download