UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > Nos. 22-5593/5800 │ v. │ │ EDWARD LEONIDAS LEWIS, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort. No. 3:21-cr-00021—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: September 1, 2023

Before: MOORE, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: David J. Guarnieri, MCBRAYER PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Lauren Tanner Bradley, Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Kentucky State Police officers searched Edward Lewis’s laptop, cell phone, and thumb drive and found evidence of child pornography. Lewis moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure of his electronic devices. The district court found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied and denied Lewis’s motion, and Lewis pleaded guilty while reserving Nos. 22-5593/5800 United States v. Lewis Page 2

his right to bring this appeal. We REVERSE the district court’s order denying Lewis’s motion to suppress, VACATE Lewis’s conviction, and REMAND for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2019, federal Homeland Security agents received a tip from a foreign law-enforcement agency that an internet-protocol address later connected to Lewis was “viewing child sexual exploitation online[.]” R. 35 (Hr’g Tr. at 11, 78–79) (Page ID #207, 274–75). The agents notified the Kentucky State Police, who opened an investigation. Id. at 10–12 (Page ID #206– 08).

Two years later, in February 2021, Detective Anthony Gatson of the Kentucky State Police and Homeland Security Special Agents Brian Minnick and Brandon Even traveled to Lewis’s home as part of their ongoing investigation. Id. at 13, 56–57 (Page ID #209, 252–53). Detective Gatson knocked on Lewis’s door, which Lewis answered. Id. at 13 (Page ID #209). Detective Gatson identified himself and the Homeland Security agents to Lewis, and “asked if [they] could speak to [Lewis] about a federal complaint of some alleged crimes over the internet from the federal government.” Id. Lewis invited Detective Gatson and the agents inside. Id.

Inside Lewis’s home, Detective Gatson explained that he had “been told there was child sexual exploitation activity at the house.” Id. Detective Gatson asked Lewis “if he would mind if someone came over and looked at . . . his devices.” Id. Lewis responded that he had no objection, id., and agreed to sign a consent form stating that he “consent[ed] to a complete search of the premises, property or vehicle located” at his residence “and more particularly described as Samsung Galaxy Note 9 [and] HP Pavilion Laptop[,]” R. 26-2 (Consent Form at 1) (Page ID #141). Detective Gatson then called for a forensic e