Case 4:16-cr-40070-KES Document 262 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 896 from Hulscher’s iPhone. Agent Fair requested a copy of the data and initially received a DVD disc containing Detective Spinsby’s segregated data (Exhibit F) that related only to the state charges. Agent Fair then contacted the Huron Police Department again and discovered that the Huron Police Department also had a complete, unsegregated digital copy of Hulscher’s iPhone data. Because the complete digital copy of Hulscher’s iPhone data could not be sent electronically, Agent Fair drove to Huron with another ATF agent, obtained a complete digital copy of Hulscher’s iPhone data, and reviewed the data on his return to Sioux Falls. Agent Fair did not get a search warrant before he reviewed the data. The government then notified Hulscher’s counsel that it intended to use the complete, unsegregated iPhone data (Exhibit E) at trial. Hulscher responded by filing this motion to suppress the complete, unsegregated iPhone data (Exhibit E). Hulscher does not appear to object to the admission of the segregated data (Exhibit F). See Docket 224 at 5, 7, 9, and 10. Magistrate Judge Duffy held a hearing on the motion and issued a report and recommendation granting Hulscher’s motion to suppress. The government has filed its responsive brief and has four primary objections: (1) that Agent Fair’s review of the iPhone data constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; (2) that Agent Fair did not have knowledge of the Beadle County warrant; (3) that the plain view doctrine does not apply; and (4) that the exclusionary rule should apply to this case. 4