United States v. Young: Concrete Factual Showing Requirement for Evidentiary Hearings in Fourth Amendment Cyber Searches

Introduction

In United States v. Young, 23-6461-cr (2d Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), the Second Circuit addressed the threshold a defendant must satisfy to obtain an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence in the context of a “private search” arising from a CyberTipline report. James Oliver Young was convicted by a jury of multiple federal crimes involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, following a search of his home and electronic devices based on materials reported by Facebook to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then to New York State Police (NYSP). Before trial Young sought to suppress the fruits of that search and requested an evidentiary hearing to explore whether law enforcement impermissibly expanded Facebook’s initial review. The district court denied the request; the Second Circuit affirmed, articulating a clear rule requiring a defendant to advance a “sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-conjectural” factual showing before an evidentiary hearing is warranted, even in the cyber-search context.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s denial of Young’s suppression motion and request for an evidentiary hearing. The court held that:

A defendant moving to suppress bears the burden of showing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and must proffer non-conclusory evidence raising disputed material facts.
An evidentiary hearing is required only if the motion papers are “sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-conjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question.” (Quoting United States v. Kirk Tang Yuk, 885 F.3d 57, 77 (2d Cir. 2018).)
Young’s affidavit “on information and belief” was speculative and failed to identify any factual dispute—specifically whether a Facebook employee previewed the image before NYSP did—and thus did not merit a hearing.
Even if the affidavit had raised a colorable issue, the search warrant was supported by ample probable cause based on the content of Facebook chats, the IP address link to Young’s home, and the corroborating statements of the minor victim and forensic evidence.
Finally, assuming arguendo any warrant defect, the officers acted in objective good faith, so suppression was unwarranted under the good-faith exception.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s ruling rests on a framework of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence governing suppression hearings, private searches, and the good-faith exception:

Private Search Doctrine: The doctrine shields law enforcement from Fourth Amendment scrutiny when they rely on material obtained by a private party acting independently. The court contrasted this case with United States v. Wilson, 13 F.4th 961 (9th Cir. 2021), where police viewed an image identified only by a hash value, expanding beyond the private search.
Threshold for Evidentiary Hearings: United States v. Kirk Tang Yuk, 885 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2018), and In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008)—the “sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-conjectural” standard.
Probable Cause Standard: United States v. Jones, 43 F.4th 94, 109 (2d Cir. 2022)—the totality-of-the-circumstances test.
Good-Faith Exception: United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 179 (2d Cir. 2020)—officers acting in objective good faith under a magistrate-issued warrant need not have suppression applied to deter Fourth Amendment violations.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-step analysis:

Threshold for Hearing: Defendants bear the burden of alleging specific facts showing a genuine dispute over the search’s validity. “‘Mere conjecture’ or ‘information and belief’ affidavits” do not suffice. Young’s lawyer’s affidavit did no more than speculate that law enforcement might have viewed the image without a prior Facebook preview, failing to raise a material factual dispute.
Substantive Fourth Amendment Review: Even if a hearing had been granted, the warrant was backed by probable cause:
- Facebook chats between Young and the minor’s mother describing sexual contact.
- An image of an under-16 individual in a sexually suggestive pose.
- IP address trace to Young’s residence.
- The victim’s out-cry to a social services worker and physical evidence of intercourse.
Consequently, the magistrate had “a fair probability” that evidence of child exploitation would be found at Young’s home. The officers thus relied on a valid warrant in good faith.

Impact

United States v. Young crystallizes the standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on suppression motions in cases arising from private or third-party electronic searches:

Defendants must present concrete, non-conjectural evidence disputing the government’s version of events before a court will convene live testimony or additional fact-finding.
The private search doctrine extends to CyberTipline reports and NCMEC referrals, provided the initial private review is not exceeded by law enforcement.
The ruling reassures law enforcement that, barring clear factual disputes, they may rely on third-party reports to secure electronic evidence against child exploiters without mandatory hearings.
Lower courts will now apply this clarified threshold, potentially streamlining suppression practice in digital-evidence cases and curbing speculative motions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Private Search Doctrine: When a non-government actor (e.g., Facebook) examines content and reports it to police, officers can use that information without conducting their own warrantless search—unless they exceed the scope of the private search.
“Sufficiently Definite, Specific, Detailed, and Non-Conjectural”: To get an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must allege facts that, if true, would cast doubt on the search’s legality. General allegations or “information and belief” statements are inadequate.
Good-Faith Exception: If officers act based on a facially valid warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, evidence obtained is generally admissible even if the warrant is later found defective, to avoid punishing officers for magistrate errors.
Probable Cause: A flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry asking whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place.

Conclusion

United States v. Young establishes a vital procedural safeguard: defendants challenging cyber-based searches via NCMEC or other intermediaries must supply a concrete factual predicate before obtaining an evidentiary hearing on suppression. This decision reinforces the integrity of the private search doctrine in the digital age while clarifying that speculative motions will not trigger costly hearings. At the same time, the court reaffirmed that search warrants grounded in detailed digital leads, victim statements, and forensic evidence satisfy probable cause, and that law enforcement may invoke the good-faith exception when executing such warrants. Going forward, Young will guide lower courts in balancing defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights against the practical realities of investigating online child exploitation.