A landmark ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal appellate court that governs North Carolina — has significantly expanded digital privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Lowers, No. 24-4546 (4th Cir. March 10, 2026), the court held that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored in cloud-based accounts, such as Google Drive, and that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before opening and viewing those files. The decision has wide-ranging implications for anyone who stores documents, photos, or other data in the cloud — and for how federal and state investigators may conduct digital investigations going forward.
What Happened in the Lowers Case
The case began when Google’s automated hash-matching system flagged files uploaded to a Google Drive account as potentially containing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Google sent a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which forwarded it to law enforcement. After the investigation wound its way through Virginia, it eventually landed with a detective in Chesapeake, Virginia. That detective — without obtaining a warrant — opened and viewed three files that neither Google nor NCMEC had ever actually opened. Each of those files contained CSAM. The detective then used what she found to obtain search warrants and continue the investigation, which ultimately led to the arrest and conviction of Nico Lowers, a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lowers moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the detective’s warrantless viewing of his files violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Google’s privacy policy, the nature of the contraband, and the hash-matching technology collectively eliminated any reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fourth Circuit disagreed on nearly every point.
The Fourth Circuit’s Analysis: Digital Files Deserve Privacy Protection
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Thacker and joined by Judge Benjamin, laid out a clear rule: just as a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a filing cabinet or a hotel room, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored in a cloud-based account. Google’s privacy policy — which warned users that Google may analyze content to detect abuse — did not eliminate that protection. Knowing that a service provider might occasionally look at your files is fundamentally different from expecting the government to have unrestricted access to those same files without a warrant.
The court also rejected the argument that hash-matching technology made a warrantless search permissible. A hash value is nothing more than an indecipherable serial number — it reveals nothing about a file’s actual contents. Unlike a drug-detection dog, which provides only a binary indication of contraband, opening and viewing a digital file risks exposing private, non-contraband material. Under the Fourth Amendment, no amount of probable cause — including a hash-match — justifies a warrantless search of a digital file.
The court also rejected the government’s “private search doctrine” argument. This doctrine allows law enforcement to review information already uncovered by a private party. The government argued that because Google’s algorithm had processed the files, Detective Rider was merely repeating a private search. The Fourth Circuit flatly rejected this. A computer algorithm that assigns a serial number to a file has not “seen” it in any legally meaningful sense. Only a human visual inspection counts. And Google had never opened the three specific files that Detective Rider viewed — meaning the private search doctrine simply did not apply. The court aligned itself with the Second and Ninth Circuits, parting ways with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.
Why the Evidence Was Not Suppressed — and What That Means
Despite finding a Fourth Amendment violation, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lowers’s conviction through the attenuation doctrine, which holds that suppression is unwarranted when the causal link between an illegal search and later evidence is too remote or broken by intervening events. Seven months elapsed between the warrantless search and the North Carolina investigation. More importantly, Lowers made a series of voluntary choices — consenting to two interviews, allowing searches of his devices, confessing, and directing investigators to his flash drive — each of which severed the causal chain. Our post on Fourth Amendment issues in the Fourth Circuit explores related questions about when warrantless searches survive scrutiny.
This is an important reminder that the exclusionary rule is not automatic. Where a defendant’s own voluntary acts intervene between a constitutional violation and the discovery of incriminating evidence, suppression may be denied even when the initial search was unlawful. The decisions a person makes during an investigation — including whether to speak with law enforcement or consent to a search — can have profound consequences.
What This Ruling Means for Digital Privacy in North Carolina
The Lowers decision is now binding precedent throughout the Fourth Circuit, covering North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. Federal investigators must obtain a warrant before opening digital files stored in cloud accounts — even files flagged by automated detection systems. The ruling applies broadly: emails, documents, photos, and financial records stored online all carry the same protection. If investigators want to open those files, they need a warrant. If they do not get one, any evidence they discover may be suppressed.
Facing a Federal Investigation? Contact The Chetson Firm
Federal investigations are complex, and constitutional violations — including unlawful searches of digital accounts — can provide powerful grounds for suppressing evidence and challenging the government’s case. As a Board Certified Specialist in State and Federal Criminal Law, Damon Chetson has the experience and knowledge to identify Fourth Amendment violations and fight for his clients’ rights at every stage of a federal proceeding. We also regularly handle complex federal prosecutions involving digital evidence and electronic surveillance.
If you or someone you know is under federal investigation or has been charged with a federal crime in North Carolina, contact The Chetson Firm’s federal criminal defense team today. We offer confidential consultations and are available to discuss your rights and options.