Extended Retention of Seized Digital Devices Pending Technological Advancements:
A Commentary on United States v. Mark Bolling (4th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

The unpublished Fourth Circuit decision in United States v. Mark Bolling, No. 23-4572 (June 16, 2025), presents a comprehensive appellate review of multiple Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenges arising out of a large-scale narcotics and firearms prosecution. Although unpublished and therefore not formally binding, the opinion is noteworthy for two reasons:

• It approves a 17-month law-enforcement retention of a locked cell phone while investigators awaited technological developments that would enable extraction, balancing the government’s investigative interests against a defendant’s diminished possessory interest while incarcerated.
• It offers a careful application of the inevitable discovery doctrine to a roadside search, reinforcing procedural expectations for tow-policies, plain-view contraband and automobile-exception searches.

Defendant–appellant Mark Bolling, a felon, was convicted on several drug-distribution and firearms counts after a traffic stop in Fayette County, West Virginia, led to discovery of methamphetamine, fentanyl, cash, ammunition, and a cell phone. Subsequent residential searches uncovered additional firearms and a silencer. On appeal, Bolling challenged virtually every adverse ruling by the district court, including motions to suppress, motions to dismiss under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a requested Franks hearing, Brady-based discovery requests, juror strikes, and post-trial motions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit (Judges Diaz, Heytens & Benjamin) affirmed in full. Key holdings include:

• The drugs, cash and ammunition discovered during the traffic stop were admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine because departmental tow policy would have required removal of passengers, revealing contraband in plain view and giving probable cause for an automobile-exception search.
• Seizure and delayed forensic search of Bolling’s cell phone did not violate the Fourth Amendment; the 17-month retention was reasonable given the investigatory interest in evolving unlocking technology, Bolling’s diminished possessory interest while jailed, and evidence of his attempt to have the phone wiped.
• Sufficient evidence supported constructive possession of firearms found in another tenant’s apartment, based on photos, Google searches, and jail calls tying Bolling to the weapons.
• No Franks or Brady violations were established; alleged misstatements were at worst negligent, and lost video evidence lacked apparent exculpatory value or proof of bad faith destruction.
• The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a juror who ultimately affirmed her ability to be impartial.
• Felon-in-possession charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) survive facial Second Amendment attack even after Bruen, maintaining the “longstanding” prohibition on firearm possession by felons.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – framed what constitutes prolongation of a traffic stop.
• Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) – scope of exclusionary rule and exceptions.
• United States v. Pratt, 915 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2019) – balancing test for prolonged seizure of digital devices.
• Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) & Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) – reasonableness of seizures.
• United States v. Alston, 941 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 2019) – inevitable discovery & automobile exception.
• Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) – no warrant needed when probable cause exists to search vehicle.
• Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) – falsity/omission standards for warrant affidavits.
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) & progeny – duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald, Rahimi – felon-in-possession context post-Bruen.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) Traffic-Stop Search – Inevitable Discovery

Although the defendant argued that Patrolman Farley lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop, the panel sidestepped the issue by invoking inevitable discovery:

1. Department policy required towing an uninsured vehicle.
2. Towing inevitably entails removing occupants; when the first passenger stepped out, marijuana in plain view provided probable cause for a full automobile-exception search.
3. Because the officers “could and would” have discovered the evidence lawfully, suppression was unwarranted.

(b) 17-Month Cell-Phone Retention

Applying Pratt, the court balanced:

• Government interests: high evidentiary value of the phone; objective technological obstacle to extraction; defendant’s direction to have phone wiped.
• Defendant’s interests: diminished because he was incarcerated; no request for return.

The delay was therefore judged reasonable, especially once law-enforcement acted promptly (within two months) when new unlocking tools arrived.

(c) Constructive Possession of Firearms

Evidence (photos, Google search, landlord access, jail call) supported that Bolling, although not the apartment’s tenant, had dominion and control—satisfying § 922(g)(1) under the “joint or constructive possession” standard.

(d) Franks and Brady

Misstatements about the nature of the Keystone Drive structure were deemed negligent, not reckless; excising them left ample probable cause. Lost video data lacked demonstrably exculpatory value, and no bad faith was shown. Photographs sufficed to test any pipe-bender-vs-gun-case theory.

(e) Juror Impartiality

The trial judge personally questioned the juror and credited her assurance of impartiality. Absent “manifest abuse,” appellate courts defer.

(f) Post-Bruen Felon-in-Possession Challenge

Echoing Supreme Court guidance, the panel reaffirmed the “longstanding presumption of lawfulness” of § 922(g)(1). Thus, even in a post-Bruen landscape, categorical felon disqualification remains intact.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Digital-Evidence Practice: Investigators in the Fourth Circuit now have explicit (albeit unpublished) support for retaining locked devices for significant periods while awaiting forensic capabilities, provided they can articulate a concrete investigative need and the defendant’s possessory interest is slim.
• Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: The opinion stresses documented tow policies and contemporaneous observations establishing probable cause as linchpins for this exception.
• Felon-in-Possession Jurisprudence: Confirms that § 922(g)(1) remains facially valid, offering guidance to district courts inundated with post-Bruen motions.
• Quality-Control of Warrants: Agents’ negligent misstatements did not merit suppression, but the court’s critical tone signals that future reckless or intentional omissions will not be forgiven.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: Even if police mis-step, evidence stays in if they can prove they would have found it anyway through a lawful route.
• Automobile Exception: Cars are mobile; if police have probable cause, they can search without a warrant.
• Franks Hearing: A mini-trial to test whether officers lied or recklessly omitted facts in obtaining a search warrant. Granted only on a “substantial preliminary showing.”
• Brady Material: Any evidence favorable to the accused that the prosecution must disclose. Suppression requires proof the evidence was (1) favorable, (2) material, and (3) withheld.
• Constructive Possession: You do not need the gun in your hand—control or the power to control suffices.
• Facial Constitutional Challenge: Claim that a statute is invalid in all applications, an exceedingly high bar.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Bolling is a primer on modern Fourth Amendment litigation, showcasing the breadth of arguments a defendant can raise and the multi-layered analysis courts must apply. The most salient doctrinal takeaway is the Fourth Circuit’s explicit endorsement of extended retention of seized digital devices when forensic tools lag behind encryption advances—so long as investigators diligently pursue eventual access and the owner’s possessory interests are minimal. Coupled with a robust application of inevitable discovery and reaffirmation of felon-disarmament laws, the decision will likely inform both investigative strategies and defense counsel risk assessments throughout the circuit.