United States v. Hines

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025 · Evidence

EvidenceFourth AmendmentPrivate searchesSuppressionprivate searchgovernmental actionstate actionFourth Amendment

Facts

K.S., Hines's girlfriend, used a passcode she knew to unlock Hines's cellphone at the apartment they shared and saw images she believed depicted naked young girls. She took the phone to the police station, where she, without prompting according to credited testimony, showed Officer Wessels several images while scrolling through the phone; the officer then took the phone into evidence. Based on K.S.'s statement and Officer Wessels's account, police obtained a warrant to search that phone and other devices seized from the apartment, including a laptop. Forensic searches of the phone and laptop revealed child pornography.

Issue

When a defendant challenges a search conducted by a private party, who bears the burden of showing whether the search constituted governmental action? And on these facts, did K.S. act as a de facto government agent when she unlocked the phone and showed its contents to police, such that the Fourth Amendment required suppression of the phone evidence and evidence later obtained under warrant?

Rule

Fourth Amendment protections apply only to governmental action, not to a search by a private individual who is not acting as an agent of the government or with governmental participation or knowledge. When a defendant seeks suppression based on a private party's search, the defendant bears the burden of showing that the search had a sufficiently close nexus to the government so that the private party's conduct is fairly attributable to the state. Mere police approval or acquiescence is insufficient; a close nexus generally requires coercive power, entwinement in management or control, or significant overt or covert encouragement by the state.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Maya Ortiz suspected that her roommate, Colin Reed, was hiding stolen credit-card numbers on a tablet they both used occasionally. While Colin was at work, Maya guessed his passcode, opened a photo folder, and found screenshots of account information. She drove to the police station, where she told Officer Lena Brooks she had found the material and asked him to look at the tablet.

Colin moves to suppress, arguing that the search was warrantless. Who bears the burden on the threshold question whether Maya's conduct was governmental action implicating the Fourth Amendment?

Explanation. The threshold issue is whether the challenged search involved governmental action at all. When a defendant seeks suppression based on a private party's search, the defendant bears the burden of showing a sufficiently close nexus between the private actor and the government so that the conduct is fairly attributable to the state. The usual presumption against warrantless searches does not shift this initial burden before Fourth Amendment applicability is established. (Derived from United States v. Hines (n.d.).)