Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Ruling On The Bryan Kohberger Digital Warrants (Part 1)

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.


However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohberger

to contact me:

[e-mail]


source:

021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
this episode, we're headed back out to Moscow where we're
going to dive into another ruling made by Judge Hiplery yesterday,
and this time we're taking a look at the order
on defendant's motions to suppress AT and T, Google, USB, Apple,
and Amazon. And these are all the warrants that we

(00:20):
went through when they were all hitting the docket hell
years ago for some of them, and now after all
that time waiting, we finally have some movement. So let's
dive in State of Idaho plaintiff versus Brian C. Coberger,
the defendant, case number zero one twenty four DASH thirty
one six sixty five introduction. Defendant is charged with one

(00:44):
count of burglary and four counts of murder in the
first degree in connection with the stabbing deaths of four
University of Idaho students in the early morning hours of
November thirteenth, twenty twenty two. As part of law enforcement's investigation,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued federal grand jury subpoenas
to Apple and Amazon to obtain information from accounts linked

(01:06):
to defendant. The FBI provided responsive information to detectives from
the Moscow Police Department who requested and received search warrants
from Apple and Amazon accounts. In addition, detectives sought and
obtained search warrants for defendants Google accounts, a USB drive
containing defendant cell phone data, and for information held by

(01:26):
defendant cellular carrier AT and T. Before the court are
Defendant's motions to suppress the information obtained through the subpoenas
and the AT and T, Google, Apple, and USB search warrants.
Defendant argues the FBI's issuance of the subpoenas constituted a
warrantless search that violated its privacy interests under both the

(01:47):
Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section seventeen of the Idaho Constitution.
He further argues that the search warrants failed to command
a search and or lack of particularity. The state responds
that defendant reliquished any privacy interests he had in the
Amazon and Apple materials, and further contends the remaining warrants
are proper and sufficiently particular. A suppression hearing on the

(02:11):
portion of defendant's motions at issue in this order was
held on January twenty fourth, twenty twenty five, during which
the Court received testimony from Detective Corporal Brett Payne and
Detective Lawrence Mawory, both from Moscow Police Department. The Court
found both detectives to be credible and reliable. Following argument,
the Court took the matter under advisement. The Court find

(02:34):
suppression is not warranted because one defendant relinquished any privacy
interest he had in the record subpoenat from Amazon and
Apple pursuant to third party doctrine, and two the remaining
search warrants are valid. Two the standard the standard of
review of a motion to suppress is bifurcated. The power
to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence,

(02:58):
and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court
State Versus Valdez Molina, one twenty seven, Idaho, nineteen ninety five.
A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence
combines the issue of law and fact, and the trial
court's factual findings will not be overturned unless they are
clearly erroneous. State Verse Connate, one forty three, Idaho, seven

(03:20):
ninety seven, seven ninety nine, one fifty three p dot
three D four seventy seven four to seventy nine, two
thousand and seven. When a decision on a motion to
suppress is challenged, the application of constitutional principles to the
facts found will be freely reviewed. State Verse Venterosa, one
thirty eight, Idaho, nine twenty five nine twenty eight seventy

(03:42):
one p Dot three d one zero seven two one
zero seven five two thousand and three three Finding a fact.
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, an officer from the
Moscow Police Department responded to a residence located at eleven
twenty two King Road in Moscow, Idaho, where he discovered
the bodies of Madison Mogan, Kaylee Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and

(04:04):
Xana Kernodle. Each appeared to have been stabbed to death.
The investigation that ensued was a multi agency affair involving
members of the Moscow Police Department, the Idaho State Police,
and the FBI, among others. For purposes of the investigation,
a command team consisting of several investigators from each of
these agencies was set up at the Moscow Police Headquarters.

(04:27):
The command team included, among others, Detective Brett Payne and
Detective Lawrence Mawory of the Moscow Police Department, as well
as Special Agent Nicholas Balance of the FBI, all of
whom were co located on the second floor of the
Moscow Police Department. The command team met twice daily for
several weeks to review, analyze, and organize the information gathered

(04:49):
in the investigation. Pertinent information was transmitted into a working
Probable Cause affid DAVID that could be and was incorporated
by law enforcement into their various SICH warren affidavids. All
investigators had access to the search warrant affidavids issued during
the investigation. Among the initial search warrants sought in the

(05:10):
investigation were two AT and T cellular carrier for a
phone number that law enforcement had linked to the defendant.
Detective Pain applied for and received both warrants on December
twenty third, twenty twenty two. As Detective Pain was not
an expert in cell phone data, he relied heavily upon
Agent Balance, who was a member of the FBI's Cellular

(05:31):
Analysis Survey Team or a CAST and specializes in cell
records analysis. Agent Balance aided Detective Pain in both drafting
the search warrant affidavids for the AT and T warrants
and analyzing the returned information. Within a week of obtaining
the AT and T warrants, law enforcement obtained a warrant

(05:52):
for defendant's arrest. The arrest was effectuated on December thirtieth,
twenty twenty two, at his parents' home in Pennsylvania. At
the time, law enforcement sees defendant cell phone pursuant to
search warrant for the home to preserve the phone's data,
The FBI copy the contents of the cell phone onto
a USB drive, but did not review the contents. Law

(06:15):
enforcement also had a warrant to search defendant's vehicle, which
was located in the garage of his parents' home. During
the search of the vehicle, a receipt for an Apple
iPad was found. Following the defendant's arrests, the FBI obtained
and served two federal grand jury subpoenas, one to Apple
Incorporated and one to Amazon Incorporated. In addition, Detective pain

(06:36):
and Or maw re obtained search warrants for records from Google, Apple, Amazon,
and for the contents of the USB drive a first
AT and T warrant. The first AT and T warrant,
Detective Pain applied force sought nine categories of records associated
with defendant cell phone. One customer subscriber information, two device

(06:59):
purchase information, three associated email addresses, four call detail records,
five cell site information, six cell site locations, seven location
based information for the cell phone, eight text in MMS messages,
and nine cloud data see example S one two, first
at and T objection. Each of these categories was narrowed

(07:22):
by a detailed description of the specific information sought. The
information requested was temporarily limited to a forty eight hour
period November twelfth, twenty twenty two at twelve am PST
through November fourteenth, twenty twenty two at twelve am PST.
In his accompanying search Warrant Affidavid, Detective Pain set fourth

(07:44):
in detail the circumstances of the crime and the scope
and result of the investigation as to date, including evidence
linking defendant to the suspect vehicle seen on surveillance videos
around the time of the murders. Detective Pain indicated how
so each of the categories of information sought to aid
the investigation, including in determining whether the phone's activity was

(08:07):
consistent with the suspects, vehicle route of travel as seen
on surveillance videos, whether the phone was in the vicinity
of the murders during or prior to its occurrence as
part of planning the crime, and why defendant's phone was
not reporting to the network during the estimated time the
crime occurred. Based on Detective Pain search warrant Affidavid, the

(08:27):
Magistrate issued a search warrant for the records sought Herein
the warrant stated in relevant part Brett Paine having given
me proof upon oath this day showing probable cause establishing
grounds for issuing a search warrant, and probable cause to
believe property consists of certain evidence regarding the investigation into
the crimes of homicide at eleven twenty two King Road

(08:49):
in Moscow, Idaho, is on the AT and T account
associated with the phone number five zero nine five nine
two eight four five eight between November twelfth, twenty twenty
two twelve AIST to November fourteenth, twenty twenty two at
twelve am PST. The warrant then set forth each of
the categories of information defined by Detective Pain in his

(09:10):
search warren affid David. It was served by Detective Mallory
upon AT and T via email. As was Detective Mallory's practice,
he did not include Detective Pain Search Warren affid David
with the warrant when serving it. AT and T emailed
the return of the requested information back to Detective Mallory
later that day. The returned information was immediately turned over

(09:32):
to Agent Balance for review and analysis. In reviewing the information,
Agent Balance had access to and knowledge of Detective Pain
Search Warren Affidavid supporting the first AT and T warrant
b AT and T PEN Trap and Trace warrant. Within
hours of receiving the return on the first AT and
T warrant, Detective Pain applied for a second warrant to

(09:54):
AT and T, this time to obtain records associated with
defendant cell phone number for the p fire six months,
as well as for the installation of a pen register
and trap and trace device for the number. The records
thought were called detail records with cell sites for all voice,
SMS and data connections. These records were further defined to

(10:17):
include subscriber account information, device identifying information, usage and location
information to include cell site positions, information addresses of cell
towers used by the device, and subscriber identity information for
customers who contact or are contacted by the device. Again,
Detective Pain search warrant after David set forth in great

(10:39):
detail the circumstances of the crime and the scope and
result of the investigation as of that date, including an
analysis of the data received from the first AT and
T warrant. This information, according to Detective Pain, showed that
the estimated locations for defendant cell phone during the forty
eight hours before and after the homicide right were consistent

(11:01):
with the movement of the suspect vehicle seen in the
various surveillance videos. He stated, based on my training and
experience and the facts of the investigation thus far, I
believe that Cohburger, the user of the eight four or
five eight phone, was likely the driver of the white
Alantra that is observed departing Pullman, Washington, and that this

(11:22):
vehicle is likely suspect vehicle number one. Additionally, the route
of travel of the eight four or five eight phone
during the early morning hours of November thirteenth, twenty twenty two,
and the lack of the eight four five eight phone
number reporting to AT and T between two forty seven
and four forty eight is consistent with Colberger attempting to

(11:42):
conceal his location during the quadruple homicide that occurred at
the King Road residence. As a result, I'm seeking historical
CSLI from June twenty third, twenty twenty two to current
prospective location information and a pen registered trap and trace
on the eight four or five eight phone to aid
in efforts to determine if Coburger stocked any of the

(12:04):
victims in this case prior to the offense conducted surveillance
on the King Road residence, is in contact with any
of the victims associates before or after the alleged defense,
any locations that may contain evidence of the murders that
occurred on November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, the location of
the white Alantra registered to Coburger, as well as the

(12:26):
location of Coburger. A search warrant for the information requested
by Detective Pain was issued by the magistrate later the
same day. The warrant stated, in relevant part, Brett Paine
having given me proof upon oath this day showing probable
cause establishing grounds for issuing a search warrant, and probable
cause to believe there are records related to the crime

(12:47):
of homicide at eleven twenty two King Road in Moscow, Idaho,
and are currently under the control of AT and T
for historic called detail records for the telephone number five
oh nine, five nine, two, eight four or five eight
with cell site towers for all voice, SMS and data
connections between June twenty third, twenty twenty two to present.

(13:09):
The warrant then set forth each of the categories of
data outlined by Detective Pain and a search warran Affidavid.
In addition, the warrant authorized investigators to install and use
a pen register, trap and trace device and sell site
simulator in accordance with IC Section eighteen sixty seven nineteen.
Once issued, Detective Pain set the pen trap warrant to

(13:30):
the FBI for service. Since the FBI hosted the pen
register a portion of the warrant, Agent Balance then serve
the warrant on AT and T on behalf of the
Moscow Police Department See Defense Exhibit B to pen Trap reply.
Detective Pain Search Warrant affid David supporting the pen trap
warrant was not served with the warrant. However, the return

(13:52):
was provided to Agent Balance, who had access to the
search warrant. Affid David in reviewing the Return, all right,
we're going to wrap up right there, and then the
next episode we're gonna pick up with c the Google warrants.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.