Your Messages, Their Account: Sixth Circuit on Privacy

Many people assume the Fourth Amendment protects every message they send. A new published decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Kentucky, is a reminder that the answer depends on whose account the government searched.

What happened

In United States v. Lewis, No. 25-1508 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026), the defendant was convicted by a federal jury in Detroit of aiding and abetting a kidnapping. Much of the evidence came from search warrants for Instagram and Google accounts, most of which belonged to co-defendants and other people. Some of those warrants were issued by Michigan state judges and some by federal judges. Only one federal warrant covered the defendant's own Instagram account.

Before trial, the defense moved to suppress the evidence and asked for a Franks hearing, which is a hearing to test whether a warrant affidavit left out or misstated important information. The trial court denied both requests, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The court's reasoning

The key issue was Fourth Amendment "standing." A person can challenge a search only if it intruded on his own property or reasonable expectation of privacy. The court compared group-chat messages stored in another person's account to a letter mailed to someone else: once the letter is in the recipient's house, the sender cannot object if police seize it there. The court said the same applies to chat messages recovered from another person's Instagram account.

That conclusion carried over to the warrant for the defendant's own account. That warrant relied on information gathered under the earlier state warrants, which he had no standing to challenge. Because he could not attack those earlier warrants, he also could not make the strong preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing. The court also rejected his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, two evidentiary rulings, and the jury instructions.

Why it matters

Sixth Circuit published opinions bind federal courts in Kentucky, including the Western District. Here is the practical takeaway for anyone under investigation:

Messages you send can leave your control. Once a message lands in someone else's account, you may have no right to challenge how police obtained it from that account.

Group chats are especially exposed. A warrant for any one member's account can reach the whole conversation.

Standing comes first. Before a court will consider whether a search was unlawful, the defense has to show the search intruded on the defendant's own privacy or property. Identifying which searches a defendant can challenge, and which he cannot, is an early and important step in any digital-evidence case.

None of this means digital evidence cannot be challenged. Warrants for your own phone, accounts, and home are still subject to the Fourth Amendment, and every case turns on its own facts.

Talk to a defense attorney early

If you are under investigation or have been charged in Kentucky state court or federal court, and your case involves phones, social media, or other digital evidence, contact the Law Office of B.J. Early, PLLC at (270) 447-5540 for a free consultation. We serve Owensboro and Western Kentucky and handle federal criminal defense.

This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.