Cory Johnson v. United States

QUESTION 1: Does Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) prohibit the Government from searching privacy protected GPS information in the metadata of a digital video labeled contraband when neither the warrant nor the Government’s forensic review specified GPS or metadata as responsive to the charges identified in the warrant and the purpose of the search was to look for evidence of a crime not specified in the warrant and for which the Government admitted it had no probable cause? QUESTION 2: Does the standard federal plea agreement clause that the government agrees not to bring any other charge “known to” the United States at the time of the agreement preclude subsequently bringing a new charge based on a digital video file admittedly in its possession; physically viewed by it; and after informing Defendant all seized files had been thoroughly searched because the government maintains it was unaware of the potential charge due to an undisclosed prosecutorial mistake? QUESTION 3: Is a search for a file’s GPS metadata constitutionally unreasonable/untimely and/or unfair when it is not conducted until fifteen months after the Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) forensic review failing to identify the metadata or GPS responsive to the warrant was completed; ten months after a plea agreement resolving the warrant specified charges was executed; eight months after Defendant, in reliance on the agreement, went into custody; and four months after the case and any prospect of trial was terminated by sentencing pursuant to the agreement?