Case 4:16-cr-40070-KES Document 262 Filed 02/17/17 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 902 If the issue had not come before the court, the government would have tried its case, and the iPhone data would not have been used. In contrast, the benefits of applying the exclusionary rule in this case are clear. If the exclusionary rule is not applied, law enforcement agencies will have carte blanche authority to obtain a warrant for all data on a cell phone, keep the unresponsive data forever, and then later use the data for criminal prosecutions on unrelated charges—erasing the protections specifically contemplated in Riley. Based on this weighing, the government’s objection is overruled on this point. The unsegregated iPhone data (Exhibit E) is suppressed. Although the issue was not explicitly addressed in the parties’ briefs or the hearing before Magistrate Judge Duffy, the court notes that the iPhone data may be used for impeachment purposes if Hulscher testifies at trial. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “illegally seized evidence, even if inadmissible, may be used to impeach a testifying defendant.” United States v. Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357, 1361 (8th Cir. 1992). Thus, if Hulsher testifies at trial and his testimony is inconsistent with the iPhone data, the data may be used for impeachment. CONCLUSION The government’s review of Hulscher’s unsegregated iPhone data constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Because the Leon good faith exception and the plain view doctrine do not apply, the government’s search of Hulscher’s iPhone data violated Hulcher’s Fourth Amendment rights. Because the benefits of applying the exclusionary rule outweigh the costs of 10