United States v. Johnsen

── United States v. Johnsen ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6689 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:21-cr-01118- JCH-JR-1 v. DUANE LEE JOHNSEN, AKA Duane Lee Johnson, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 2, 2026 Phoenix, Arizona Filed May 26, 2026 Before: Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton 2 USA V. JOHNSEN SUMMARY * Criminal Law The panel affirmed Duane Lee Johnsen’s conviction for receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252, and accessing and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Johnsen argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his home and devices. • Johnsen contended that because officers had not downloaded and viewed any of the suspect files from his computer, it was improper for the magistrate judge who issued the search warrant to find probable cause based in part on evidence that Johnsen possessed files with hash values matching known child pornography. The panel disagreed because a hash match between a suspect’s files and known child pornography amply supports the reasonable inference that such material is present on the suspect’s devices, even if agents have not downloaded and viewed the suspect file, and the hash matches were bolstered by substantial additional evidence that independently supported the finding of probable cause. • The panel held that Johnsen’s arguments that law enforcement’s review of his public files on a peer-to- * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. JOHNSEN 3 peer filesharing account violated his Fourth Amendment rights and the Wiretap Act are squarely foreclosed by this court’s precedent. Johnsen argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because he was prejudiced when officers forensically analyzed his devices without his counsel present, and because he was wrongfully targeted for selective prosecution due to his prior conviction for offenses against children. The panel rejected these arguments because Johnsen had no right to an attorney’s presence during the forensic analysis, which was not a critical stage of the prosecution, and Johnsen presented no evidence that he received differential treatment or was targeted for prosecution due to an impermissible prosecutorial motive. Because Johnsen did not pinpoint any element of his conviction as being inadequately supported, nor offer any specific arguments or record citations to support his summary assertion that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence, the panel declined to review the district court’s denial of Johnsen’s motion for judgment of acquittal. COUNSEL Karla H. Delord (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; William G. Vot, Appellate Division Chief; Timothy Courchaine, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Stephanie K. Bond (argued), Law Offices of Stephan