Case 4:16-cr-40070-KES Document 262 Filed 02/17/17 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 901 The government also objects to the conclusion that the plain view doctrine does not apply to digital searches generally. Because this court can rule on the suppression motion based solely on the facts of this case, the government’s objection is sustained on this point. IV. The exclusionary rule applies to the iPhone data. A violation of the Fourth Amendment does not automatically trigger the application of the exclusionary rule. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009) (citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 905-06 (1984)). The court must determine “the efficacy of the rule in deterring Fourth Amendment violations in the future.” Id. at 141 (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347-355 (1974); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486 (1976)). The court must weigh the benefits of applying the rule against its costs. Id. When weighing these competing values, the balance—in this case—tips toward excluding the iPhone data. See id. (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 910). As noted by the Supreme Court in Herring, “[t]he principle cost of applying the [exclusionary] rule is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free . . . .” Id. (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 908). Here, the cost of applying the exclusionary rule is minimized because the evidence is peripheral in nature and not directly related to the firearms offense. The government’s actions also suggest the evidence is not necessary for a conviction. Prior to Agent Fair’s search of the iPhone data, the government was ready to proceed with trial on January 3, 2017. Minutes before voir dire, the parties addressed a late discovery issue, and the court granted a continuance. 9