United States v. Hines: Shifting the Burden—Defendants Must Prove Governmental Involvement in Private Digital Searches

1. Introduction

United States v. Hines, No. 23-7032-cr (2d Cir. 2025), concerns a Fourth Amendment challenge to evidence found on a defendant’s cellphone and laptop after his girlfriend (K.S.) voluntarily disclosed child-pornography images to local police. While the underlying offenses are serious, the precedential value of the decision lies elsewhere: the Second Circuit expressly places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that a private individual acted as an agent of the government when he or she conducts a search. The ruling clarifies a recurring issue in the digital-age context where family members, roommates, or by-standers expose contraband on personal devices before police become involved.

Key parties and chronology:

Defendant-Appellant: William Hines
Private actor: Girlfriend, K.S., who unlocked Hines’s cellphone and brought it to the police station
Law-enforcement actors: Hoosick Falls Police Officers Wessels & Ashe; NY State Police Investigator Judge
Procedural posture: Conditional guilty plea preserving right to appeal denial of suppression motion
Issue on appeal: Whether K.S. was a de facto government agent, triggering Fourth-Amendment protections and requiring suppression of all derivative evidence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit (Judges Sack, Carney & Bianco) affirmed the district court’s denial of Hines’s suppression motion. The core holdings are:

Allocation of Burden: When a defendant challenges a search carried out by a private person, the defendant must establish governmental involvement. The government need not negate it.
No “Agency” Proven: On the facts found after an evidentiary hearing, K.S. acted independently—there was no “close nexus” or significant police encouragement. Her search therefore did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
No Taint on Warrant: Because the initial viewing was a private search, officers could use K.S.’s information in a warrant application; the later forensic searches were valid.
Affirmance of Conviction & 144-month sentence.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) – foundational “private-search doctrine” holding that purely private searches fall outside the Fourth Amendment.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) – illustrates when governmental “encouragement” converts private action into state action.
United States v. DiTomasso, 932 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2019) – restates “sufficiently close nexus” test within the Second Circuit.
United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) – clarifies that mere acquiescence is insufficient for state action.
United States v. Osorio, 949 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1991) – assigns burden of proof to the movant on a suppression motion.
Out-of-circuit burden rulings – e.g., Rosenow (9th Cir. 2022), Kramer (3d Cir. 2023) – cited to show uniform national approach.

These authorities collectively support two propositions: (1) purely private searches do not invoke the Fourth Amendment, and (2) to transform a private actor into a government agent requires more than passive acceptance by police.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Threshold Inquiry – Who Bears the Burden?
The court emphasized that Fourth-Amendment protections presuppose government action. Because a suppression motion is a defensive device invoked by the accused, logic and precedent place the onus on the movant to show such action.
New rule: In the Second Circuit, demonstrating “state action” in a private-search context is part of the defendant’s prima facie showing.
Application of “Close Nexus” Test.
The panel evaluated whether police instigated, encouraged, or controlled K.S.’s conduct. Findings supported autonomy: she located the images at home, voluntarily drove to the station, unlocked and scrolled without prompting, and officers stopped her swiftly once contraband was confirmed. Absence of prior telephone calls, promises, threats, or direction was dispositive.
Observational vs. Investigatory Conduct.
Police merely witnessing what a private citizen exposes is not a “search.” The court reiterated the Supreme Court’s view that “mere visual observation” is not within the Fourth Amendment’s scope.
Derivative-Evidence Doctrine.
Because the initial view was lawful (private), the warrant obtained the next day was not “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Had K.S. been an agent, suppression might have followed, but the absence of state action broke the causal chain.

3.3 Potential Impact

The ruling will reverberate in several areas:

Digital-device cases: Family members, romantic partners, IT technicians, and Good Samaritans often disclose illicit files. Hines gives prosecutors a clear roadmap to argue the Fourth Amendment is not triggered unless the defendant can show pre-search police involvement.
Suppression practice: Defense counsel must marshal affirmative evidence—emails, texts, body-camera footage—showing police inducement. A bare assertion that “they must have instigated it” will no longer suffice in the Second Circuit.
Law-enforcement protocol: Police may accept voluntarily delivered evidence, but should refrain from directing or encouraging expanded private searches to preserve admissibility. The opinion implicitly approves the officers’ restraint.
Fourth-Amendment scholarship: Hines cements nationwide consensus on burden allocation, reducing circuit splits and potential Supreme-Court review.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

State Action / Agency Test – Determines whether a private individual’s conduct is legally attributable to the government. Requires “significant encouragement,” coercion, or joint participation.
Private-Search Doctrine – Once a private individual has already opened or viewed a container/device, police may replicate only what was already exposed without a warrant; going further requires a warrant.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – Evidence derived from an unconstitutional search is ordinarily suppressed. If the initial act is constitutional (or private), the doctrine does not apply.
Good-Faith Exception – Even if a warrant is later found invalid, evidence may be admissible if officers relied on it reasonably. The district court invoked this in the alternative, but the Circuit did not reach it.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Latin maxim meaning “false in one thing, false in everything,” sometimes used to attack credibility. The court clarified it is permissive, not mandatory.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Hines establishes a bright-line evidentiary rule in the Second Circuit: the defendant, not the prosecution, must prove governmental involvement when basing a suppression motion on a search executed by a private individual. Coupled with a meticulous application of the “close nexus” test, the opinion reinforces the constitutional boundary between private initiative and state action, particularly in the fast-evolving terrain of digital devices. Litigators should treat Hines as controlling authority on burden allocation and as persuasive guidance on how courts will scrutinize the factual matrix surrounding private digital disclosures. In the broader Fourth-Amendment landscape, the decision both harmonizes the Second Circuit with sister circuits and provides clearer behavioral incentives for law enforcement and the public alike.